Hey, I was just providing two major examples! Google, Gandi, Godaddy, Porkbun, NameSilo (provided free, not sure if enabled by default), Network Solutions (not by default as far as I recall, but free still), etc... I can't think of a registrar that *doesn't* do it anymore since the advent of GDPR
Etc etc..... -----Original Message----- From: Mel Beckman <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 8:05 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Gary Sparkes <[email protected]>; Dorn Hetzel <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: GoDaddy deleting most ancillary registration contact information So, 2 out of 2400. “Two, if not all”. LOL! -mel via cell > On Jul 19, 2025, at 4:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > > None of my personal domains have any sort of privacy turned on, never > have (it didn't exist when the oldest ones were registered via SRI), > and never will. > Personally, it feels skanky to do it, but I guess that's just one opinion. > > >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 7:39 PM Gary Sparkes via NANOG < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Cloudflare and Namecheap default to privacy, and don't charge for it. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mel Beckman via NANOG <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 7:11 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Mel Beckman >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: GoDaddy deleting most ancillary registration contact >> information >> >>> On Jul 19, 2025, at 2:03 PM, David Conrad via NANOG < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> I believe it is the result of most if not all Registrars defaulting >>> to >> “privacy” for registrations since GDPR was enacted. >> >> David, >> >> Most if not all? I don’t know of any registrars that default to “privacy” >> for registrations. In fact, the all sell it as an add-on option that >> you have to explicitly accept and agree to pay for. >> >> It seems like registrars are doing this to just reduce the amount of >> data they’re responsible to maintain, while not reducing costs one iota. >> >> I’ll bet if the FTC, or whoever, mandated that this reduced level of >> service required a refund to existing registrants, we’d find exactly >> how much non-European Registrars really respect the GPDR! >> >> -mel via cell >> >>> Barry, >>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2025, at 11:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> On July 18, 2025 at 19:39 [email protected] (David Conrad via >> NANOG) wrote: >>>>> My somewhat cynical answer: if you relied on domain (and likely IP >> address/ASN in the future) registration data, it might be worthwhile >> figuring out alternatives to that reliance. Les cynically: >> pragmatically, given the vast majority of contact information these >> days points to privacy providers or is redacted, I’m unclear there >> will be significant impact — the data is already pretty useless. >>>> Even if 90% were useless it would still be of use, possibly >>>> critically, in the other 10% of cases and I don't think it's >>>> anywhere near 90%. >>> >>> I’ve not done an exhaustive survey myself, but the “majority of >>> contact >> information” comment was taken from my interactions with law >> enforcement and I believe it is the result of most if not all >> Registrars defaulting to “privacy” for registrations since GDPR was >> enacted. However, since the law enforcement folks I deal with are >> mostly interested in current activities, e.g., phish/botnet/etc., >> it’s likely they focus on recently registered domains so there may be a >> selection bias. As such, I won’t argue the point. >>> >>>> Particularly if one can consider legitimate "privacy providers" >>>> useful as they can be contacted, subpoenaed, etc. which you seem to >>>> count as being in the "useless" category. >>> >>> As mentioned, ICANN still requires registrars to collect valid >>> contact >> information, however that information is not provided to the public >> as it once was. It is, of course, still subject to subpoena/court >> order (depending on jurisdiction, of course) and it’s theoretically >> possible, if you can make your case to the registrar, that they’ll >> provide registration information to you if you can demonstrate >> “legitimate interest” (at the registrar’s discretion and risk, of course). >>> >>>> Whatever happened to "if your registration data is fraudulent, >>>> obsolete, or incorrect you stand to have your registration canceled"? >>> >>> AFAIK, it remains a contractual requirement despite ICANN >>> undertaking a >> law suit in Germany to enforce it for admin-c and tech-c and losing >> (if interested, see >> https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/the-fine-print/recent-lawsuit-ica >> nn-against-german-domain-registrar-highlights >> ). >>> >>> However, this gets into an “interesting” (or “infuriating”, >>> depending on >> your POV) discussion about what contact information “accuracy” means. >> ICANN Accredited Registrars’ view (which I provide without comment) >> is at >> https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/RrSG-Approach-to-Registra >> tion-Data-Accuracy-March-2024.pdf >> . >>> >>>> This seems like an admission that this policy was not enforced. >>> >>> >>> Not sure how you got there. Registrars (or their lawyers) will >>> (have, >> and do) argue that they abide by the policy (see the Registrar’s >> position above). ICANN Contractual Compliance argues that they >> enforce the policy (see pretty much any statement by the head of >> ICANN CC). I have my opinions, but they’re not particularly relevant. >> Since GDPR, the flagging of inaccurate registration has >> unsurprisingly tanked, so it’s difficult for the public to determine >> if registration information is accurate or inaccurate (for whatever value of >> the variable “accurate" you want to use). >> Perhaps somewhat relevant, see sections 5.2 and 6.4 of >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/inferential-analysis-mali >> ciously-registered-domains-08nov24-en.pdf, >> but that probably doesn’t help that much. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NANOG mailing list >>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ >>> VT >>> C33LVNIQ6ZCHVXL3YLRFCTTDJ6TEHN/ >>> <signature.asc> >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/V >> FIPBHSKZYDFMKRT5RRMPCGMIESCXUZ6/ >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/E >> X7HBCA5RDMPXEZ3R4RSOWU33RS242AD/ > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/H2 > JC46XX6B4TOLBK5LDBFKK63LCJMRCL/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5AIB7SGGVJAOP5LYBVP5RWVYKULGKZFV/
