<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">+1<br>
Couldn't have said it better myself. :)<br>
<br>
<span>Geordie Guy wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHTNzfmq4afYrW-P2PQ+rnw0mxii+eh+CxhX2Uwwda9WjH37nw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">This is perpetuating the "nothing to hide" myth. Privacy
is not about being protected from any particular form of harassment such
as spam, it's about the details of the registration being nobody's
goddamn business. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In particular, this is about this being round #2738 of
rights holders and other speculative legal action trolls being
distressed about not having information on tap they ordinarily need to
follow due process for.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Australian network operators and the wider technology
community need to learn what is actually a threat to the ability to
operate networks and services over the top of them. Spam is not a
threat. Anonymity is not a threat. Privacy is not a threat. Copyright
trolls, the attorney general and the TLAs are threats. Wise up.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:06 Mark ZZZ Smith <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au">markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p dir="ltr">While I understand the desire for privacy,
I'm not sure it is as much of an issue in this case as people might
think it is.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">I've had a number of domain names registered to me with
this email address, my mobile number and my PO BOX(es) since 2002.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">I do receive quite a lot of spam to this email address, but
then again I've been using it quite publicly for many years, including
on a number of public mailing lists and in open source code that also
gets published on web pages. So I can't attribute spam I've received
specifically to my domains' whois information.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">I haven't had any issues with having my mobile number
listed, and I've had the same mobile number since 1995. On very rare
occasions I've received SMS spam, however I couldn't attribute that to
my whois details. Neither have I had any issues listing my PO BOX - I
can only think of a few pieces of mail I've received over the years that
I definitely could attribute to being sent because of my whois
information. I would recommend a PO BOX to hide where you actually live
though, if you're going to publish your mailing address publicly (as I
have done in a number of Internet Drafts).<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">It is my understanding that the existing "privacy" service
that registrars offer is achieved by them actually registering the
domain name in their name, and then letting you use it i.e., it isn't
actually your domain name, it is theirs. I think I read a while ago
about a dispute between a customer and a registrar, where the registrar
was in the wrong, but they wouldn't let the customer have the domain and
the customer couldn't get the domain because it wasn't actually
registered in their name. <br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mark.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr"><b>From:</b> Brad Peczka <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:brad@bradpeczka.com">brad@bradpeczka.com</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 25 June 2015, 15:39<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [AusNOG] ICANN to bring an end to TLD privacy?<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">At the behest of organisations such as MarkMonitor, ICANN
is considering a policy change whereby domain holders with sites
associated to "commercial activity" will no longer be able to protect
their private information with WHOIS protection services. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The text of the proposal can be found on ICANN's website at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf">https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">Something worth noting is that the definition of
'Commercial Activity' appears to be quite wide, and will likely
encompass a number of sole/small traders who operate under their own
name, rather than a business. I personally feel that the auDA approach
hits the happy medium - protecting a large amount of information from
being publicly accessible, while still being able to see what entity is
in control of a domain name.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If you're interested in commenting, the close date for
submissions is 7th July... so get typing!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards,<br>
-Brad.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br></p>
<p dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</p></blockquote>
<p dir="ltr"><br>
</p>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>