nanog mailing list archives
RE: Internet privacy
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:01:53 -0700
--On Thursday, October 2, 2003 2:50 PM -0600 Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon () orthanc ab ca> wrote:
On Thursday, October 2, 2003 1:22 PM -0700 Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> 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 certain amount of contact information as a matter of public record.As a company director and officer I do not have to make my home address and telephone number available. I don't even have to make the company's office address or telephone number public. But I do have to provide an "office of record" where the company (or its officers and directors) can be served legal notice. Typically this is the address of the company's lawyer.
Right... I have no problem with that.
If someone registers a domain and wants to pay their lawyer to be the contactThere's no reason why domain registrations should be any different. I can think of many good reasons for someone not wanting their home address and telephone number listed in the domain contact info. (For starters, think spousal abuse. Your policy would prevent a woman hiding from an abusive spouse from registering a .name domain.)
of record for the domain, there is nothing in existing policy or process that prevents them from doing so. Further, there is no need for such a woman to register a domain under her own name. The facilities already exist for handling such situations.
HOWEVER, there does need to be *some* form of valid contact information provided.
Right.
Registrars might want to consider offering a point-of-contact intermediary service as a "value added" product.
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 allow revocation of resources for bad contact data. Think about it, if you allow the registrar (who has the ultimate obligation to pull the domain) to instead obscure their contact for a fee, then, you have essentially eliminated any such protection. Owen
--lyndon
Current thread:
- Re: Internet privacy, (continued)
- Re: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 01)
- Re: Internet privacy Martin J. Levy (Oct 01)
- Re: Internet privacy Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Martin J. Levy (Oct 01)
- Re: Internet privacy Jack Bates (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Jeffrey Meltzer (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Jack Bates (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Leo Bicknell (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Lyndon Nerenberg (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Lyndon Nerenberg (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 02)
- RE: Internet privacy Jeffrey Meltzer (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Matt Levine (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 01)
- Re: Internet privacy Richard Cox (Oct 02)
- Re: Internet privacy Booth, Michael (ENG) (Oct 03)
- Re: Internet privacy Owen DeLong (Oct 03)