RE: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Larry,
eNom has such a service (we call it ID Protect).
Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Erlich
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:10 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois

>From a Network Solutions email that
I just received:

--ICANN requires personal contact information associated
--with a domain name registration be made available for
--anyone to view on the web in a public WHOIS database. 
--
--With our Private Registration service you will get alternate
--contact information for your domain name registrations.
--The contact information you want to keep private is kept
--out of the public WHOIS database.
--                                            
--Our introductory price of $5 per year per domain name is
--expiring soon. So add Private Registration to your domain
--name registrations today.

It seems that there is a conflict of interest in
the discussion about whois as a few registrars that are
participating also offer "private" registrations. As such
it is obvious that they would probably prefer to
have all whois information as public as possible
so that they can continue to sell the
private registrations. Nothing wrong
with that, but would those registrars that
have private registrations care to identify
themselves?


Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com




Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> I agree with Ross' comments below for the most part.
> 
> By severely restricted, I meant that it should only be used to facilitate
> transfers, and only then until something better is decided on. I was not
> arguing anything about the data collected or displayed.
> 
> But regarding that, I don't see a need for, or agree with, any change to
the
> data collected or displayed, at least based on any of the arguments or
> reasoning that I've seen or heard to date.
> 
> Also, I am only talking about direct access to port 43. I see no problem
> with, and am not recommending any change to, the Web based access to Whois
> as long we can continue to protect it from scripting or high volume
access.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:44 PM
> To: Paul Stahura
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for
> Whois TF1
> 
> On 3/30/2004 9:13 PM Paul Stahura noted that:
> 
> > What happens with thick registries?
> > .com and .net will switch to EPP, and who knows, probably thick EPP.
> > Do we get to choose "b allow registrars to manage the service as they
see
> > fit" by not providing them with the whois information?
> 
> I think this is almost a separate conversation, but my preference would
> be to evaluate the utility of the thick registry model before we permit
> the creation of any more. Based on the testbed experience, I'm not
> convinced that centralizing customer data in this way without getting
> the guarantees we all need from a legal perspective is necessarily a
> wise thing moving forward.
> 
> To the point as it relates to this policy - registrars shouldn't be
> obligated to provide the data to any party that can't guarantee that the
> data will be treated in a manner consistent with the policies and
> legislation under which it was collected.
> 
> > Are you proposing we be allowed to not give the info to anyone?
> 
> That would be one potential implementation. Or just to parties that we
> have a relationship with. Or just to parties that acts a brokers between
> registrars and potential licensee's or...
> 
> --
> 
>                         -rwr
> 
>                  "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
>                                             All life is an experiment.
>                              The more experiments you make the better."
>                          - Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org