RE: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

Larry,

I was just concerned about your above statement. I didn't think if was fair
to generalize that way. Thanks for the explanation.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Larry Erlich
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:04 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois

Tim,

I think it was a reasonable question and I just wanted
to know. Nothing more than that. Don't assume everyone
who is on this lists is up to date on what everyone
is doing in their registrar business when they
read comments regarding issues. 

We offer private registrations but would still rather have
restrictions on whois data. 

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> Larry,
> 
> Not sure why you think there is any need for disclosure here, no one is
> running for anything. And I've made no secret of the fact that Go Daddy
> offers Domains by Proxy's private registration service.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tbarrett
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:45 PM
> To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'Larry Erlich'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois
> 
> EnCirca also has such a service.  We offer it for free.
> 
> Tom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 3:28 PM
> To: 'Larry Erlich'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Private Registration Data Whois
> 
> 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