At 4:06 PM +0100 on 2/9/07, Thomas Roessler wrote to a bunch of us, saying:
So: Explain what impact obfuscating WHOIS further would really have. Assume you have to jump through some hoop to convince a registrar that you're a good-faith private investigator. Assume you don't have access at all. Assume there's some rule that makes domains which don't have contact information much easier to take down. What happens? How do these options *really* shift the balance?
I'll tell you what. If obfuscation goes through, and things don't get worse the way I am saying with dead certainty they will, I will publicly proclaim in blog and print media that you are correct to the 25,000 netizens I represent, and resign my position. Are you personally prepared to be held accountable if I am correct? Is anyone here? 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? -- == Neil Schwartzman Chair, Board of Directors CAUCE Canada: The Canadian Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email Canada: +1 (514) 485-9713 US: +1 (303) 800 6345 UK: 020 8144 6345 Skype: spamfighter666 Fax: +1 (419) 793-0430 [AIM / MSN / Yahoo!]: CAUCECanada [Web]: http://cauce.ca See http://stopspamhere.ca for ways to prevent spam from hitting your inbox.