Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Good to remind folks of the issue for which this PDP and WG was raised.

So far as I can see, the only substantive difference as regards 'thin' vs
'thick' WHOIS is the point of storage of 'authoritative' data.  [So long as
the RAA remains in force and is the principal policy mechanism for gTLD
WHOIS], WHOIS dataset change required? NO.  WHOIS accuracy change required?
NO.  WHOIS accessibility change required? NO.

So, what am I missing in this context?

What we have here is a perfect storm of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
 Still the preferred approach to selling 'damaged goods'.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
> I agree on all of these principles, but do not understand the relevance to
> thick/thin Whois model. Why does the registry holding a copy of the data
> WHICH IS ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE alter anything? Privacy is still
> protected by the original registrar or proxy provider based on the laws in
> their jurisdiction.
>
> An organization that works on gay issues can register in a country and
> with a registrar that will hide their identity under multiple levels and
> will even defend a UDRP if necessary, without unmasking the original
> registrant". All that will show up in the registry database is the top
> proxy provider - exactly what the registrar would show in its Whois output
> in the thin model.
>
> I do note that as alluded to above, that most proxy providers will unmask
> the original registrant as soon as a UDRP is filed, even if that UDRP might
> have little merit. And even if the UDRP is lost, the original registrant's
> name will be published in the public report on the UDRP. I have never heard
> of anyone fighting to change that rule!
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 29/01/2013 01:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
>  I disagree.  There are institutions, such a battered spouse organizations
>> or organizations of gay activists in most of the world that can't afford to
>> have their information made public.
>>
>> One example: I am a member and activist volunteer of APC, Association for
>> Progressive Communications - an Internet Human Rights group.  Its chair,
>> who used to be the person listed in the WHOIS, has gotten phone calls and
>> email death threats based on her WHOIS info, and has submitted statement on
>> that at some point - I will try to dig it up.
>>
>> Another example: Just recently Russia passed rule that makes any
>> publication related to gay community or people is considered criminal.
>>  should those organization that work on gay issues be barred from
>> protection because the country that holds the thick registry does not
>> guarantee protection for organization of endangered peoples?  Better they
>> should have the option of registering with a registrar in a country that
>> values and protects privacy not only for individuals, but for the
>> organizations of endangered users.
>>
>> avri
>>
>
>