What valid reason would you have for getting in contact with a domain
owner, if they've unlisted themselves and don't want to be contacted?
What valid reason is there for allowing a domain owner to be unlisted and
uncontactable. If you want to remain anonymous, then you don't need a
OK... I'll correct the phone number. However, I will note that the address
and email address are both valid contact information, and, you could easily
have sent this in private email had your intent been to avoid further
off-topic discussion.
Owen
--On Friday, October 3, 2003 13:05 -0400 Booth,
Allen McRay wrote:
To learn how to assign WHOIS contact information and about other actions you
can take to protect your personal information today, visit
www.InternetPrivacyAdvocate.org.
It's rediculous to state that placing contact information for a domain
name is a privacy issue. A domain is
: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:08 AM
To: Allen McRay
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: Internet privacy
Allen McRay wrote:
To learn how to assign WHOIS contact information and about
other actions you
can take to protect your personal information today, visit
www.InternetPrivacyAdvocate.org
they can? It's bad enough that the whois information is often out of
date with obvious bogus information like 555-1212.
or that it seems to revert to information circa 1994..
and is nearly impossible to change now.
I gave up, moved all my important domains to an OpenSRS affiliate
I'm happy to see Verisign's actions on the Chicago NANOG agenda...
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/dns.html
But (alas) I don't see any ICANN names on the list...
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/attendee.list.html
Keep in mind that NANOG is a North America... entity and what your
Jeffrey Meltzer wrote:
What valid reason would you have for getting in contact with a domain owner,
if they've unlisted themselves and don't want to be contacted?
Problem with email or a website to a given domain. The fact that IP
addresses aren't swip'd out to the individual owners. Multiple
Amen. If there is a problem with a domain that I have registered, I want
people to be able to find out who I am, and contact me. If I don't respond
to a request, don't put forth my best efforts, or remove myself from the
network until the problem is corrected - then pull the plug on me. Plain
--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 12:08 PM -0400 Jeffrey Meltzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to start a war, but you can block your Telephone Number from being
listed in the phone book, so why shouldn't you be able to block your whois
info?
Because you don't need a domain name to live on the
In a message written on Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
What valid reason is there for allowing a domain owner to be unlisted and
uncontactable. If you want to remain anonymous, then you don't need a
domain.
It is possible to be anonymous and contactable. Is that
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 1:22 PM -0700 Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because you don't need a domain name to live on the Ineternet. If you
choose
to have a domain name, then, it's akin to hanging out your own shingle.
If you hang out a shingle, you have an obligation to provide a
Personally, I think having to present your real identity for a domain
name is a legitimate requirement. For small (/29 or smaller) IP
allocations,
I have no problem with the upstream provider taking responsibility.
For domains and larger netblocks, I think the individual should be
accountable,
--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 2:50 PM -0600 Lyndon Nerenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 1:22 PM -0700 Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because you don't need a domain name to live on the Ineternet. If you
choose
to have a domain name, then, it's akin to hanging
On Oct 2, 2003, at 5:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
snip
I think this would be a very bad thing. If some independent
organization
wants to provide that service, fine. Allowing registrars to provide it
allows for the possibility of a conflict of interest if any policies
ever
come to fruition to
Whatever responsibile third party wants to provide this service already
can. There is no need for any changes. The changes proposed by Verisign
and the things they are currently promoting do not fall within that.
Owen
--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 3:07 PM -0600 Lyndon Nerenberg
[EMAIL
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Allen McRay wrote:
Apologies if this is off-topic. No chance of it ever happening, correct?
=;]
What's interesting about Verisign's proposal is they are lobbying to
eliminate free or compulsary distribution of the WHOIS data; they are
NOT lobbying to keep the data private.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:08:27 -0400, Jeffrey Meltzer wrote:
What valid reason would you have for getting in contact with a domain owner,
if they've unlisted themselves and don't want to be contacted?
Netblock info, yes, because that's where the abuse comes from. Domains are
forged a lot more
Sue,
I know it's short notice, but, can we try and get someone from
ICANN to explain at Chicago why they haven't pulled Verisign's contracts
for malfeasance? Further, can we get someone from Verisign to explain
how Verisign plans to correct these actions and stop taking unilateral
Owen,
I know it's short notice, but, can we try and get someone from
ICANN to explain at Chicago why they haven't pulled Verisign's contracts
for malfeasance? Further, can we get someone from Verisign to explain
how Verisign plans to correct these actions and stop taking unilateral
19 matches
Mail list logo
