RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

the research you propose is going to delay more serious decisions
about whois privacy. I am not saying this is why you propose it. Not
at all. It is how it will work. A serious study into existing cloaking
services will not be done in a few months.

More fundemeantally, I oppose he solution of cloaking services, as I
explained earlier. They exist to repair provcay violations that need
not exist.

So, again, why don't we tackle the fundamental issues first. Secondary
issues like cloaking might be mute after we've done with principles.

Marc

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, at 16:41 [=GMT-0400], Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:

> Marc, one way to find out if your impression is wrong is to do the
> research proposed by TF2.  This is one of the questions that would be
> addressed.
>
> Regarding e-mail forwarding, note the following recommendation of TF2,
> in the same section of its preliminary report (immediately following the
> passage I quoted in my earlier post):
>
> Further work should also be conducted on the feasibility of requiring
> registrars to provide e-mail forwarding services to registrants, and the
> impact of such a requirement upon registrant privacy and contactability.
> As a first step, the research agenda outlined above could be expanded to
> study the operation of such services to the extent they exist today.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc
> Schneiders
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:06 PM
> To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, at 11:41 [=GMT-0400], Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
> wrote:
>
> > The WSJ article asserts that these services are becoming increasingly
> > popular, and that 5% of "new registrants" are using these services.
> > In light of this I suggest that we re-visit the question of whether it
>
> > would be productive to find out more about how these services, which
> > apparently are becoming an important part of the Whois landscape,
> > actually operate.
>
> No, I do not support the idea to research this as part of our TF work.
> My impression is, that these cloaking services provide little extra
> privacy. The terms of registrars that I read, state that the cloaking
> service provider gives up details to anyone saying they have a legal
> issue (to avoid being sued themselves). If I would like to get the
> details of a woman I want to stalk, I am sure I find a lawyer who gets
> these for me for a moderate fee. Read e.g. Enom's terms. If my
> impression is wrong, I'd like to learn which cloaking services protect a
> registrant as far as a court order. I mean that they don't give up the
> details unless there is a court order. (Sorry I am not a lawyer and
> English is not my native language.)
>
> In my view cloaking is a secondary solution. We should not need it.
> Why ask people to pay extra money to remain private? Should this not be
> solved by us in stead of the market? Why do we demand people to give up
> their privacy?
>
> If there is a serious legal issue, the courts will provide access to the
> whois details. In my view that is it. I know there are serious trademark
> and other intellectual property issues that could more easily and less
> costly (also for the registrant) be resolved if whois data remain
> public. I think, however, that it is the choice of the domain name
> registrant to publish her or his details.
>
> Another option might be (perhaps it has been suggested before), that
> email messages could be passed on through a registrant by the registrar
> or registry. The email address would then remain private, but contact
> would be possible. This would be a low level entry for lawyers.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>