DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

(cc's snuffed)

I really don't have any concern about suppressing publication of the
Registrant's address, e-mail and telephone/fax numbers, on an opt-out

The loss of utility would be nominal, if any at all, and that should
satisfy the concerns expressed WRT potential stalking, Spam, etc.

The name of the Registrant, a valid Technical Contact with full
information and the DNS information should still be public.  There is
utility in that.

I don't know a good reason why the billing contact information needs
to be public, though.

An opt-out with an associated fee, similar to getting an unlisted
telephone number, is probably the best approach, since some (maybe
most - look at the white pages) don't really care if their information
is published.


Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 12:11:41 AM, L. Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com> wrote:

LG> On 27 Aug 2002, at 23:50, Don Brown wrote:

>> If the availability of the WhoIs data has caused some harm to anyone,
>> then it should be a point of concern.  Automobiles have also caused
>> some harm, but that's a different subject.

LG> We all have been told of harm caused.  It is an issue, but one that is 
LG> ignored.  As for autos, your analogy would be like saying that the DNS 
LG> has caused harm.  No one is saying get rid of the DNS.  If you want to 
LG> find the owner of an auto, most states now will not just hand out the 
LG> database information to any individual who asks.  Most states also do 
LG> not use SSN#'s for driver's licenses and won't simply provide you with a 
LG> driver's license number.  If you provide your SSN# or drivers' license 
LG> number for ID purposes, you have the right to insist it not be shared by 
LG> third parties.

>> Perhaps regulation of the users of the data is better and more
>> absolute than revoking access to all.  Maybe that idealistic and not
>> very pragmatic, but here has to be a coming together somewhere.

LG> If that were feasible, given the reasons for the existence of the Whois 
LG> currently, I might agree.  It is not feasible, however.  First, every 
LG> registrar and registry would have to cooperate.  Second, every country 
LG> would have to cooperate.  ICANN and its backers are certainly NOT 
LG> going to agree to keep the information private, are they.  Restricting 
LG> users of the data is the same as requiring a legal order to obtain it, IMO. 
LG>  Other than a tech contact, what would you "need" the data for?

LG> If your use of the WHOIS is for pursuit of domain name holders, then 
LG> you should not have access to it any more than you do for telco 
LG> customers.  If your use is for technical admin contact, then there are 
LG> tons of web based dig tools and always command line tools for tracing 
LG> via IP address.  IP whois info is more accurate anyway.

LG> Leah

LG> --
LG> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
LG> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
LG> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
LG> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>