Hello, Dan Halloran of ICANN replied about that WHOIS question that came up a while ago, and gave permission to post his reply. P.O. Boxes *are ok* according to current policy. Here is the interpretation:
> --- Dan Halloran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > George, > > > > Thank you for your inquiry. Sorry for the delay in getting back to > > > you. > > > > Subsections 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8 of the ICANN Registrar > Accreditation > > Agreement require registrars to provide the "postal address" of the > > > admin and technical contact for each registration. In this > context, a > > valid "P.O. Box" is definitely a valid "postal address." (In other > > words, if a mail carrier will deliver a letter there, then it's a > > "postal address.") > > > > I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any > further > > assistance. > > > > Best regards, > > Dan Halloran > > Chief Registrar Liaison > > ICANN > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > P.S. Thanks too for taking the time to participate in the Transfer > > Task Force/WLS calls this week. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Kirikos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 3:48 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: WHOIS registrant data inaccuracies followup > > > > > > Hello, > > > > --- "wxWeb.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Saturday, May 18, 2002, 2:12:55 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > > > > Domain owners should be able to feel that any information they > > > provide > > > > will not be released to others unless it's necessary for the > > > operation of > > > > the domain or for legal reasons. Period. > > > > > > 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). > > > > <snip> > > > > > 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. For a domain name, an agency service like the one Hugh > > > > I agree. I've cc'd Dan Halloran of ICANN, as I'd be curious to know > > > how ICANN interpets "Postal Address" in the context of their > advisory > > at: > > > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm > > > > If reading that announcement, one takes the section: > > > > "and is responsible for providing its own full contact information > and > > for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative > > contact > > information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any > problems > > that arise in connection with the Registered Name" > > > > it is consistent with my own thoughts on the subject, previously > > expressed at: > > > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00399.html > > > > that a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) amount of disclosure is > that > > there be enough information available to legally serve someone with > a > > process (i.e. "timely resolution" might be consistent with the > > premise > > of being able to be legally served a process). > > > > Here's a hypothetical example of an admin contact: > > > > Services, Elephant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PO Box 12345 > > Beverly Hills, CA 90210-12345 > > US > > (415) 555-1234 <<-- assume this is a real number > > > > Is a P.O. Box Number, with no physical address considered a valid > > postal address given the aims and objectives of the public WHOIS, > > either by ICANN or the various bills floating around the U.S. > > Congress? > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that a P.O. Box Number can be > > "served" a legal process, at least not in a timely manner. The mail > > > may or may not arrive at the target person, if they pick up their > mail > > from > > the P.O. Box. However, a process server couldn't verify that via > > personal service, etc. To that extent, the goal of "timely > > resolution" > > is not met. This might be a case where ICANN should make its > advisory > > more clear, as to what exactly constitutes a valid Postal Address > to > > help law enforcement, consumers, and other legitimate users of the > > WHOIS information. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
