Draft Comments on Proxy Services
Thierry Amoussougbo
TAmoussougbo at UNECA.ORG
Wed Feb 25 05:54:36 CET 2004
I second Marc position.
Let us start learning and be more organised.
Thierry H. Amoussougbo
Regional Adviser
Development Information Services Division
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
Tel: 251 1 511167 ext 33053
Fax: 251 1 510512
E-mail : tamoussougbo at uneca.org
Marc Schneiders
<marc at SCHNEIDERS.ORG To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft Comments on Proxy
Non-Commercial User Services
Constituency
<NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSE
RV.SYR.EDU>
25/02/2004 03:55 AM
Please respond to
Marc Schneiders
Kathy, you argue very much from a freedom of speech approach. Why not
from a privacy approach? Why on earth should anybody be able to find
out who is the owner of a car with license plate ZS-06-LK in Holland?
That is my car. It can do much more harm than a domain. Still, if you
want to find out, that it is my car, you have to go through legal
loopholes. The burden of proof is upon those who want a thick,
obligatory, whois, not on those who want it tuned down to minimal and
voluntary data.
In Europe this is sort of normal. Any company that wants your data has
to ask for your permission (in writing) to store them in a database.
And it cannot share it with anyone else.
Am I wrong that registrars are still entitled (or even obliged) to
sell my whois data to third parties? Why? Who is the owner of my data?
I can opt out of this bulk selling of my data. But not of making
public that I own a domain. In some (or many I do not know) European
countries you cannot even find out who owns a piece of land, unless
you can establish a legitimate interest in knowing the details. Why
for domains open to all at any time so easily? Ask those who insist on
whois as it is, why, why, why. The burden is upon them. Not us.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, at
11:00 [=GMT-0500], KathrynKL at AOL.COM wrote:
> 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: â?Anonymous Domain Name Registrations.â?
>
> Preface:
> The Noncommercial Constituency believes that the right to anonymous
> communication â" on the Internet and elsewhere â" 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 â?costâ? 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 â?proxyâ? service. For an additional fee, the
â?proxy provider
> â? 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 â?Domains by Proxy,â? Go Daddy
urges: â?
> Make your domain registration private! Protect yourself from spam, scams,
prying
> eyes and worse.â? 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.
>
> â?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.â?
> 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 registrantâ?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 â?the absolute
right and
> power, in its sole discretion and without any liability to You
whatsoeverâ? to
> â?close Your Accountâ? and â?reveal Your name and personal
informationâ? for
> numerous reasons, including:
> â" â?requests from law enforcement (with or seemingly without due
> process) and
>
> - â?if the domain name DBP registers on Your behalf violates or
> infringes a third partyâ?s trademark, trade name or other legal
rightsâ? (with
> or seemingly without any legal decision). DNPA, Section 4.
>
> History bears out Go Daddyâ?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:
>
> â?On April 10th, Re-Code [registrant] was informed that their
anonymity
> service agreement had been terminated by Domains by Proxy â" on the
mere
> allegation of unlawful activity. Unfortunately, that means the
anonymizing
> service fails just when itâ?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.â?
>
>
> 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 â?proxyâ? model, the third-party company
(â?private proxy
> providerâ?) 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 Generalâ?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.
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list