I agree with the broad strokes of your argument John. As an ICANN-newbie (my first meeting was Wellington) and end-customer of the domain system, I’ve been bewildered by the conversation about WHOIS privacy and found this article to be helpful and illuminating.
The privacy case doesn’t speak terribly strongly to me, since my contact information has been in WHOIS since 1993, has been scraped a boatload of times, and those lists already provide my spam filter plenty of opportunities to learn about new things. Nobody has dropped by my house in St Paul, MN and asked to meet foo@bar.com, so I’m fairly complacent about the physical security risk. Admittedly, I get the occasional angry email from a spam recipient berating The Foo for something or other, but those are few and far between these days. Current registrants and I have registrar-provided privacy options available if we so choose. So that leaves me scratching my head and asking “aren’t we trying to either un-ring a bell, or solve a problem for which a solution already exists?”
I’ve always thought of myself as being entrusted with (and accountable for) a gaggle of domains that are part of an open/public system. If I screw up with those domains, it seems fair that people can very quickly get in touch to get things fixed.
Admittedly, I’m merely a customer. And an ICANN newbie at that. So I’m game for compelling arguments, but the status quo on WHOIS privacy is ok with me. Reply
Original post by submitnews@thewhir.com and software by Elliott Back