Neil Schwartzman wrote:
Like I said - show me a list of names of people who can't afford the commercial obfuscation systems, who have an identifiable need for a domain and a private whois record, and I will pay out of my own pocket to cover the services.
Better yet - why doesn't ICANN set up a facility to do so?
I am not entitled to speak for ICANN, but I know ICANN sufficiently well to try to make an educated guess. My guess is that by setting up a facility to do so it would implicitely endorse the principle that people who can afford to pay for their privacy should do so. I fear that to endorse the principle that "who can pay should" could open up a serious can of worms on all kind of creative exploitation of the domain name market. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this world is multicultural, and there are different opinions about what is a right and what is a privilege. But since the internet is global, we need a mechanism to sort out the differences that takes into account all points of view: the point of view of who says that obfuscate your personal data on the whois is a right, and who says it is a privilege (that you might have to pay for); the point of view of who says that access personal data on the whois is a right, and who says it is a privilege (that you might have to prove you have the credentials for). Anyway, I'm sitting over the fence and gather information, because this matter will eventually end up on the Board's table. I have a lot of respect for who is trying to defend against abuses on all sides: I have only to observe that what is a legitimate action in certain cultural environments is an abuse in others, and vice-versa. Also for this reason, I find this discussion excellent. However, I have one question, or rather one curiosity: why is it that "LEA rely on the unique and highly-skilled abilities of amateur investigators *heavily* in their efforts"? Best regards, Roberto