I think there is a very fine and fuzzy line between spamming and what you refer to as 'legitimate business'. Yes, indeed many times keeping data confidential is the purpose to avoid the chicken-hawk attorneys* who couldn't get a gig with the recording industry. Similar in instance to 'the corporate veil'. This method is used all over, and is one of the founding principles of corporations. As an example, if I have a worthless opinion about Pepsi, should I be able to contact the chairman to complain? Should my attorney be able to contact him/her at any time? Opinions aside, I think I would have a hard time contacting that person in reality. Certain channels must be followed. But there are corporate documents that provide that info, and usually reverts to another representative (designated agent). Therefore, if I wish to assign a designated agent, or wish to assign an annonymous benefactor, I should have that ability to do so.

In my world, there is no good reason to contact me - even during xmas, and nobody under the sun has a legitimate right to contact me for any reason. I don't even answer my phone without verifying the caller beforehand - one good thing about technology. It is what they call a right to privacy. This right is something not well provided to registrants. I volunteer to be contacted by being part of this group, and therefore participate. However, I fail to see how having my email or phone number in the WHOIS has anything to do with anything. Back in the day, it was necessary in order to ensure the right person was contacted if - let's say, servers went down. But, that business is between me and my provider and irrelevant to the DNS. Likewise, if a registrar can identify a regsitrant, if suffices the purpose.

On 7/18/07, José Ovidio Salgueiro A. <jsalgueiro@cantv.net> wrote:

In my private practice getting to know the mane and contact data of a domain name owner has proven useful.

I undestand that WHOIS data base is also a way of getting addresses for spammig pourposes but we´re not going to stop spammer by eliminating contact data on said data base and we are going to cut the chance of contacting someone for legitimate business or to avoid legal actions.

Sorry for the delay on posting my comment

José Ovidio Salgueiro A.
jsalgueiro@cantv.net

----- Original Message -----

From: Brendler, Beau

To: Evan Leibovitch ; Bret Fausett

Cc: At-Large writ small

Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:15 AM

Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG

Evan wrote:

>I believe that Beau is saying that legitimate proxy services are OK but
that there must be a path to lead to a real source.

Yes, that's what CR WebWatch is saying, and me, too. Thanks once again
for your eloquence, Evan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:02 PM
To: Bret Fausett
Cc: At-Large writ small; Brendler, Beau
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG

Bret Fausett wrote

> Ask that same person whether his minor daughter should be required to
> publish her accurate contact data (name, address, email address,
> telephone number) in a publicly accessible database as a condition of
> getting an email address, a weblog, or a homepage, and he'll scream
> "NO!"
This is overreaction, judging from the thickness of my local telephone
directory. Most people have no problem being tracked down to their phone
number or address.

People who get Internet access generally do so through an ISP that
records fairly detailed information, at least enough for billing
purposes, as well as usually an agreement to the ISP's terms of service.
Such information is not _publicly_ available, but it's available with a
warrant.

While I am loathe to get dragged into "what about the children?"
analogies, let's go with the one you used. If that minor daughter is
engaging in on-line bullying of other kids or other kinds of threats,
you're darned right that I want that activity tracable regardless of how
loud she or her parents may scream. Privacy measures must never prevent
people from facing the consequences of their actions. And being underage
does not mean one is incapable of -- or should automatically escape
responsibility for -- doing some pretty nasty stuff...

The situation is no different for domains. I believe that Beau is saying
that legitimate proxy services are OK but that there must be a path to
lead to a real source.

- Evan

***
Scanned

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org