Re Whois is dead as Europe hands DNS overlord ICANN its arse

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mikki Barry <mikkibarry () gmail com>
> Date: April 16, 2018 at 11:50:33 AM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Whois is dead as Europe hands DNS overlord ICANN its arse
>
> Perhaps the EU’s position realizes the legal agreement was essentially a contract of adhesion.  One must accept these 
> terms in order to register a domain name.  There is no mechanism for negotiation.  
>
> Further, as many of the .com registrations for individuals and small, home based businesses predate .friend and 
> .name, and as there have never been mandatory guidelines relegating these types of registration outside of .com and 
> .org, are you saying these entities should relinquish privacy rights in order to use these domains?
>
> In addition, I do not see looking up registrants to offer to buy domain names as adversarial.  What I do see as 
> adversarial is receiving a minimum of 10 spam calls per day and hundreds of spam emails per day addressed to my WHOIS 
> contact email and phone number.  Further, as one who has been physically stalked through use of WHOIS, I have a bias 
> toward privacy interests.  I disagree that privacy interests should be trumped by purely business interests.  
> Reasoning behind the GDPR itself is based upon the premise that privacy rights should, without a truly compelling 
> reason otherwise, should trump business interests.  I agree with that notion.
>
> Mikki Barry
>
>
> > On Apr 16, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <jonathan.s.shapiro () gmail com>
> > > Date: April 16, 2018 at 12:59:26 AM EDT
> > > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Re Whois is dead as Europe hands DNS overlord ICANN its arse
> > >
> > > There is a presumption in the cited discussion that WHOIS queries are somehow adversarial in nature. I suspect that 
> > > the far more common case is people looking up registrants in order to make offers to purchase. We made such an 
> > > offer a few weeks ago. The current registrant agreed to sell their domain, and both sides came out significantly 
> > > ahead.
> > >
> > > I am inclined to agree with the view that a DNS registration is conceptually similar to a business name 
> > > registration, and should require a public point of contact. This seems quite clear for .gov, .edu, .org, and .com. 
> > > Less clear for .name and friends.
> > >
> > > The EU's position seems to ignore that everyone who registered a domain name accepted a legal agreement in which 
> > > they agreed to the publicity terms for registrant information.
> > >
> > > It appears to me that the EU is ignoring the ability to mark WHOIS registrant data private. There is a difference 
> > > of opinion in the U.S. about whether private registrant data should be the default or should be opt-in. One of the 
> > > reasons we use Google Domains rather than some others is that (a) private is the default and (b) they don't use 
> > > that as an opportunity to extract more cash.
> > >
> > > It seems likely that the substance of the EU ruling will boil down to (a) private must be the default, and (b) 
> > > there can be no surcharge for private registration. I'm sure there are more details to resolve, but that would 
> > > probably cover most cases.
> > >
> > > One problem with the EU position is that it will compromise internet security. There are strong conventions today 
> > > by which services can be advised of internet-relevant compromises by emailing to known (by convention) addresses. 
> > > If your site is compromised and broadcasting spam or viruses, the EU is clear that it's on you to disconnect until 
> > > you clean up. If you cannot be notified, your potential for liability goes up a whole lot.
> > >
> > > My guess is that, in the end, the liability issues counterbalance the privacy issues and this ends up being an 
> > > expensive whole lot of nothing.
> > >
> > >
> > > On a personal note, I'm perfectly comfortable if ICANN responds to this by cancelling all domain registrations that 
> > > it can no longer lawfully maintain. My guess is that a small number of notices to the end-victims (err, umm, 
> > > end-users) will be sufficient to engage them against the EU allowing for a rational transition process.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Shapiro, Ph.D.
> > > COO
> > > Buttonsmith Inc
> >
> > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now         



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-4ac2c253
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180416130124:C9C4013A-4197-11E8-85CD-96AE1E778690
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com