Re: [ga-sys] Providing a "Nominee" Service
Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:32:38 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:15:05 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > If you don't want those details visible, then you can contract with
> > > someone to register the domain for you. They then become the
> > > registrant/admin contact. Your identity is protected; your contract
> > > with them protects your rights to the domain; they provide the service
> > > of a legal point of contact for the registrant/admin-contact.
> <snip for brevity>
> > You are of course right that I can also make a
> > separate contract with any third party, e.g. my lawyer. But
> > I don't think forcing people to pay more and have two contracts
> > is a viable approach to privacy issues.
> Hi Alexander
> Whilst I agree that "forcing people" is not a good policy, the fact is that
> you *could* contract with a registrar or third party to register a domain
> name, or hold a domain name, on your behalf.
> In fact, this is/was quite normal in Australia and the UK in relation to
> shareholdings (what the American calls stockholders, afaik). Any investor
> can buy shares from a broker or a merchant bank with the instructions that
> they be held "in a nominee name". The agent then registers the shares in a
> name like "Barclay Nominees" and keeps their own private register of the
> true owners.
> One advantage is that any dividends, scrip issues, etc become "managed".
> The downside is that there is a cost for this service. Kent's point was
> that, done on a wide-scale, there would be economies. We have to agree with
> that. That way there's only one relevant contract.
> But Kent has sidestepped two problems. One is that "nominee" service is not
> being provided, at least one any scale. The service is potentially
> available right now. OpenSRS, or any of their resellers, could probably do
> it easily. Certainly the resellers can set up multiple identities for each
> If this is not being done, it might be because the domain name holders
> are more interested in price savings than in having a private, spam-free
> "premium" service. I am sure that registrars, and other third-parties,
> would jump into the market if there was sufficient demand. That might yet
> You have already indicated the other problem. Why should a person have
> to go to that additional expense and inconvenience just to protect their
> privacy? In a modern society like ours, there should be enough respect for
> the consumer to require that only information necessary for the effective
> functioning of the internet be mandatory.
> All other data should be discretionary i.e. "opt in".
> I don't see the problem except the minimal cost in registration and the loss
> of value -- to Registrars -- of the whois data. As long as it is "across
> board" for all registrars, they could just adjust their prices a fraction.
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html