ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy


The name (and contact information) of the person making the request would be
conveyed to the data subjects (i.e. the person[s] named in the whois record].
It is only fair that when someone asks about you that you should know who is
asking.


Actually Karl that isn't bad at all. I wouldn't have any problem with it the way you explained it here. Sorry if I misunderstood it beforee.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Dena Whitebirch'" <shore@xxxxxxxxxx>; "'ga'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy



kidsearch wrote:
I don't have a problem with the dmv concept as long as the average user can access the information. Yes one record at a time is sufficient.
It's funny that it's being advocated that domain holders have a rigjht to priivacy, but anyone requesting information would have to disclose all that info that Karl suggested.
So the domainer has the right to privacy, but the requester of info does not?

In my original proposal the details were more clearly spelled out.

The name (and contact information) of the person making the request would be conveyed to the data subjects (i.e. the person[s] named in the whois record]. It is only fair that when someone asks about you that you should know who is asking.

But the name of the data requester would be made visible to the public only via periodic reports that count who made how many inquiries, and anyone who made more than a threshold number of inquiries across all of whois would be listed. Thus, if you only asked about a few names your name would not appear in the periodic report, but if you asked about lots and lots of names, then you would appear. This *is* subject to gaming - large law firms for example, might spread their inquiries across a large number of associates, paralegals, and clerical staff rather than identifying the principals who are really asking.

That period report would also try to aggregate the reasons in some way - so that people who use whois to make large numbers of trademark accusations could be identified.

I don't see any problem with the slight imbalance. The people listed in whois had to chose between being in whois or not using the internet. The people who are making the inquiry have a choice - they can go through the system I propose and be listed in the periodic report if they do whois mining, or they can use standard legal processes, get a subpoena to access the records, without the public ever really knowing.

--karl--





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