ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP'" <mcade@xxxxxxx>, Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services
  • From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia" <Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:15:48 +0000
  • Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Absolutely! Neither my company nor any ISP that I'm aware of would take up
interception...esp. under the auspices of protecting privacy (which would be

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:48 AM
To: Marc Schneiders; Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services

I'll let Maggie Mansorkia resond for the ISP Constituency. As a company who
operates an ISP/both consumer and corporate, I can tell you that the ISP
community, as I know it, do not support having anyone  intercept email.
Unless expressly authorized by the subscriber. 

As to anonymous services, why are we not intersted in learning more about
them to see what the satisfaction is with these services? Marc has raised a
question. We can ask what kinds of protections are provided. As to ensuring
protection, in most countries, ISPs require court orders. 

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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


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