At 5/18/02 3:06 PM, wxWeb.com wrote: >Why should they feel that way? > >They do not have that assurance when they purchase real estate. All >property ownership information is available publicly, without >exception. In fact, much like whois, they have to make it available >in bulk format (for a fee). There are even companies who specialize >in storing all of the information from particular states and >nationwide, and making it available for searches (including searching >for all property owned by a particular name). > >A domain name is much like "virtual property" and having POC >information available serves a very useful public service.
No, I don't think a domain name is like physical real estate, at least not in the ways that matter for this discussion. If you suggested to the average domain owner with a Blog site that purchasing a domain name incurs a similar level of public responsibility to that of purchasing a house, most would laugh at you. The other reason this metaphor doesn't hold up is that if you're trying to find out who owns the house at 123 Main Street, it's much less likely to be a privacy violation when the government gives you their address, isn't it? :-) >I may eat my words, but I seriously doubt it, when I say that the >public access to whois data will not end anytime in the near future. Well, I won't dispute that. That doesn't mean OpenSRS shouldn't work towards minimizing the problem. For example, ICANN doesn't require that billing information be in the WHOIS, so I would like to see it removed. >Privacy is not just a right, it is a responsibility as well. If >registrants are concerned about personal privacy, then, like in >personal property ownership, they can go to lengths to protect their >privacy. I reject this argument. That leads to paranoia; I do not want to live in a society where the assumption is that personal information people provide to a company will be made public, and that when the form asks for their address, they must "go to lengths" to use information that doesn't allow lunatics to come round to their house because they think the picture of the woman on the Web site is cute. Anyway, as resellers, aren't we better served by having customers provide us with contact information that allows us to reach our clients without having to talk to their lawyer (for example) when we need to contact them? >For a domain name, an agency service like the one Hugh >Blair has started, and which I have been saying for many years would >be a useful solution to this problem, is a great example of a >proactive measure a registrant can take to protect their own privacy. And if the agency ceases to exist? Then there is bad contact information, and people on this very list will try to get your domain taken away. (I know it's set up so that the registrant could change the contact information back, but if they've lost their password, and the physical address and e-mail in the WHOIS are now invalid so they can't prove who they are with a driver's license, they'll be in a pickle). Anyway, this suggestion is inconsistent with your oft-expressed opinion (which I agree with) that people shouldn't allow agents for them (such as Web hosting companies or domain resellers) to become their admin contacts. While I know Hugh has good intentions, so do most of the Web hosting companies and resellers who do this, but things happen that can cause problems -- companies go out of business, people get hit by buses, irrational disputes occur, etc. >Domain registration providers could even provide this service >themselves as an add-on premium service they could market to their >customers, such as yours, who desire to protect their privacy. Again, I simply reject this as a desirable state of affairs, so I suppose we just disagree on the basic premise. I think customers should have a basic expectation of privacy without taking additional steps, and that other people's relatively rare needs don't justify violating this expectation. Apparently you and George disagree; I don't understand how anybody could feel that way, but I suppose there is little to argue about. In a separate message, you also wrote: >Here in California they just have to go to the Dept of Motor Vehicles >[to look up the owner of a car]. That used to be the case, but it has not been true for a number of years, since someone was (if I recall correctly) stalked and killed as a result of that policy. For the current policy, see: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/authority.htm This is a good example of the kind of "need to know" policy I would advocate for domains: people with a legitimate interest can find out your identity (if you're in an accident, for example), but Joe Public who sees you cruising down the freeway and makes a note of your license plate number can't. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies "The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was."
