(re-send) Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft Comments on Proxy Services

[Adam Peake]

(sent this to the list 12 or so hours ago and not appeared?)

Thomas Roessler's blogged about proxy providers. Perhaps some
information useful for you
<http://log.does-not-exist.org/archives/2004/02/24/1371_proxy_registration_providers.html>

A recent high-profile (ish) anonymous blogger, Billmon
<http:/www.billmon.org> from Davos
<http://billmon.org/archives/000980.html>. Davos is in parts off the
record (so famous/rich people can tell the truth? :-) and while it
has been welcoming of blogging (Joi Ito, various panels, etc.)
anonymous comment from that place is interesting I think.

(blog blog blog... sorry! )

Adam

(blog at <http://www.too-much.tv> dull stuff, heart not in it...)



At 11:00 AM -0500 2/23/04, KathrynKL at AOL.COM wrote:
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
>Content-Language: en
>
>To All:
>Thanks for all the responses to my questions about pen names and
>proxy domain name registration services.  Your input was very
>helpful.
>
>Below is a draft I have prepared for NCUC's response to questions #3
>about proxy services.  In researching these questions, I found that
>there is really no anonymity and very little privacy protection from
>these proxy services -- they will quickly hand over the domain name
>registrant's data if the company asking is big enough, and for any
>law enforcement request (with or without due process).  I have used
>a few examples -- if you have any more please let me know.
>
>Please take a look, and let me know if you have changes or
>corrections.  We should submit these by Wednesday.  Thanks, Kathy
>*******************************************************************************************
>TF2 Questions to All Constituencies
>Noncommercial Users Constituancy Comments on
>Question 3 Re: "Anonymous Domain Name Registrations."
>
>Preface:
>The Noncommercial Constituency believes that the right to anonymous
>communication - on the Internet and elsewhere - is a fundamental
>human right.   For countries that value democracy, anonymity is
>often the way that a political minority publishes its dissenting or
>minority opinions that argue for a change of government official and
>their policies.  The Internet has become a major voice for those who
>engage in political dialog.
>
>For countries that do not value democracy, the need for anonymity is
>even greater.  It is anonymity that protects the human rights groups
>and their members who research and publish about torture, jailed
>dissidents, corruption, bribery, election rigging and other crimes
>against their people.  The Internet has become a major voice for
>those who trumpet human rights abuses.
>
>For those who value cultural and personal freedom, the need for
>anonymity is great.  Since the beginning of writing, the use of
>pseudonyms (pen names) has allowed writers to publish their candid
>literary critiques of their societies (e.g., Moliere, Voltaire,
>George Sand, Mark Twain).  It has allowed politicians to change
>their name to more popular variations (e.g., German chancellor Willi
>Brandt, born Herbert Frahm) and actors to assume more pleasing
>titles (e.g., Tom Cruise, born Thomas Cruise Mapother IV and Meg
>Ryan, born Margaret Hyra).  The Internet has become a major voice by
>which people share their plays, stories, ideas, and concerns.
>
>The tradition of anonymity and privacy in other mediums means that
>online we should not be forced to relinquish our names, home
>addresses, home phone numbers and personal email as a "cost" of
>posting our expression.
>
>The TF2 Questionnaire asked:
>
>A. Please comment on any mechanisms that you are aware of to allow
>anonymous domain registrations, or to limit the amount of contact
>data made publicly available through Whois? Please also comment on
>the conditions under which the registrant's anonymity is lifted when
>these services are used.
>
>Overview:  The Noncommercial Constituency is aware of no mechanisms
>that allow (and maintain) anonymous domain registrations.  We are
>aware of a few services that limit the amount of contact data
>provided publicly through the WHOIS database, but submit that these
>groups provide little true privacy or protection.
>
>Discussion: Because it is the stated requirement of ICANN that
>Registrars must collect and provide public access to domain name
>registrant data, including name, address, phone, fax and email.
>(Registrar Accreditation Agreement Section II (F)), the vast
>majority of ICANN Registrars do so without providing options for
>privacy or anonymity.  There are a few companies that offer some
>level of privacy protection, but their efforts, to the best of our
>knowledge do not rise anywhere close to anonymity protection for
>protected noncommercial and commercial speakers.
>
>The companies we know that provide a level of privacy in domain name
>registration offer a "proxy" service.   For an additional fee, the
>"proxy provider" will place its own information in the Registrant,
>Administrative Contact, and Technical Contact fields.
>Unfortunately, we have found that these services offer minimal
>privacy protection, but in some cases great exposure.
>`
>1.  Companies that Offer Domain Name Registration Services;
>Conditions Under Which Anonymity is Lifted
>
>The best-known company today offering domain name proxy services is
>ICANN-Accredited registrar Go Daddy based in the United States.
>Marketing its privacy service under the business name "Domains by
>Proxy," Go Daddy urges:  "Make your domain registration private!
>Protect yourself from spam, scams, prying eyes and worse."  For an
>extra fee of $12 a year (currently marked down to $9 a year),
>Domains by Proxy will enter its name and contact information in the
>WHOIS data, and the domain name registrant believes he/she/it is
>purchasing privacy protection.
>
>At the outset, there is clearly no protection for anonymous speech
>in the Domains by Proxy registration because anonymity means that
>the speaker does not have to disclose his/her/its identity.  Domains
>By Proxy, however, makes clear in its Agreement that the Registrant
>must provide his/her/its full name, address, email, phone and fax
>numbers to Go Daddy as a condition of registration -- subject to
>loss of the domain.
>
>        "In exchange for DBP [Domains By Proxy] becoming the
>Registrant of each  domain name registration on Your behalf, DBP
>shall keep Your name, postal  address, phone and fax numbers
>confidential, subject to Section 4 of this  Agreement."
>        Domain Name Proxy Agreement (DNPA), Section 1.
>www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/DomainNameProxyAgreement.htm#gd
>
>Further, the Domains by Proxy agreement clearly gives Go Daddy the
>ability to fully disclosure a registrant's personal data without
>notice to the Registrant, without an opportunity to challenge the
>disclosure with Go Daddy or challenge the subpoena in court, and in
>situations without definitive proof of wrongdoing or illegality.
>
>According to its Agreement, Go Daddy gives itself "the absolute
>right and power, in its sole discretion and without any liability to
>You whatsoever" to "close Your Account" and "reveal Your name and
>personal information" for numerous reasons, including:
>- "requests from law enforcement (with or seemingly without due process) and
>
>        - "if the domain name DBP registers on Your behalf violates
>or infringes a third party's trademark, trade name or other legal
>rights" (with or seemingly         without any legal decision).
>DNPA, Section 4.
>
>History bears out Go Daddy's commitment to the terms of its
>Agreement.  In April 2003, Go Daddy disclosed the personal
>information of Re-Code.com on the demand of Wal-Mart, without a
>court order and without prior notice to the Registrant.  Wendy
>Seltzer, Staff Attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
>reported with shock the disclosure in her blog:
>
>        "On April 10th, Re-Code [registrant] was informed that their
>anonymity service  agreement had been terminated by Domains by Proxy
>- on the mere allegation  of unlawful activity.  Unfortunately, that
>means the anonymizing service fails just  when it's needed most.  It
>fails to protect unpopular speakers from the chilling  effect of
>threats.  We still need anonymous domain name registration for those
>cases."
>
>
>2.  Other Services Offer Even Greater Exposure for Domain Name Registrants
>
>Yet, Domains by Proxy may be the best example of proxy services that
>we have.  Go Daddy is a well-respected company, and we expect it
>would honor requests for transfer and renewals by its Domains by
>Proxy customers.
>
>Unfortunately, the deep need for privacy and anonymity in domain
>registration is driving human rights organizations and others into
>the hands of much less scrupulous businesses. These third companies
>are not ICANN-accredited registrars, but contract with Registrars
>for domain names on behalf of their customers.
>
>Those registering domain names under our current system are at great
>risk.  Because in this "proxy" model, the third-party company
>("private proxy provider") places its name is in the WHOIS
>information on behalf of the Registrant.  If the Registrant wants to
>renew the domain name or transfer it to another Registrar or
>registration company, it is completely at the will of the private
>proxy provider.
>
>Last year in the US, this type of situation turned into disaster for
>thousands of domain name holders working with third-party proxy
>company that went bankrupt.  The Registrants, mostly individuals,
>small organizations and small businesses seeking to keep their home
>information out of the global databases, lost all ability to control
>their domain names.  They could not renew or transfer them because
>the proxy company failed to respond.  Hundreds of complaints went to
>the state Attorney General's office.  Dozens of domain names (if not
>more) were lost, together with their websites, listservs and the
>array of noncommercial and commercial expression that the registrant
>offered.  The situation caused a tremendous amount of hardship, lost
>expression, and lost businesses.  It is not the price that an
>organization or individual should have to pay for privacy and
>anonymity.
>
>Conclusion:
>
>Privacy is a right, not a privilege.  The NCUC submits that, to the
>extent allowed by local law, ICANN-Accredited Registrars and thick
>Registries should be allowed and encouraged to offer privacy and
>anonymity as a regular feature of the domain name registration
>process.   To be consistent with the protections of human rights,
>freedom of expression and due process, these privacy and anonymity
>protections should be real -- not subject to the limitations of fine
>print or the intimidation of a large company.


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20040226/94423f4a/attachment.html>