[AusNOG] ICANN to bring an end to TLD privacy?

[Shane Short]

That's a different issue here entirely-- you weren't collecting the 
correct information and/or not validating it properly.. The issue at 
hand is having your credentials published publicly, un-obfuscated for 
the world to see-- just so you can have a domain name.

To be clear:
- I have no issue with them collecting the information
- I understand the need for registry to collect the information and for 
them to ensure it's correct.
- I understand that allowing certain people to hide under the guise of 
anonymity can be harmful.

What I do have an issue with-- is that collected information being shown 
on the public internet to be gleefully scraped, not just for spam 
purposes, but also identity theft etc.

If we're still in a world where we must deliver a piece of dead tree to 
make things "official", why doesn't the policy mandate that any 
registrar offering domain privacy also accept written correspondence on 
behalf of the registrant and forward it in a way that complies with 
whatever legal requirement you have.

-Shane

Mark Foster wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2015 1:32 p.m., Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Geordie Guy <elomis at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>; Brad Peczka 
>> <brad at bradpeczka.com>; "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" 
>> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, 27 June 2015, 23:21
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] ICANN to bring an end to TLD privacy?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> / I think it is when you're registering a globally unique and 
>> *public* place holder / identifier using a *public* resource.
>>
>
> *snip*
>
> Badly quoted / formatted response aside, Mark has it here.
>
> Early in my career I worked heldpesk and 'abuse@' for a 'free' ISP.  
> The operations of that ISP were funded by interconnect revenues and 
> the bottom line was that if you could get online once (borrow a 
> dialup, or use a library etc), you could sign up for an internet 
> account that would work immediately, with no validation of the details 
> supplied as part of the sign-up process.
>
> You can imagine how much abuse the service saw, when people realised 
> there was essentially no accountability for your actions when you 
> could be fully anonymised (at least, until the account was reviewed 
> for obvious anonymised user-data or reported for abusive behavior, and 
> the mighty whack-a-mole act began).
>
> Having spent a lot of my career (then, and since) dealing with abuse 
> originating from parts of the Internet which don't care to be 
> accountable (through anonymised domain name registrations, ISP's too 
> large to be able to cope with the number of complaints they get so 
> they ignore them entirely, parts of the world where you know that a 
> complaint from a small nation in the south pacific aren't worth the 
> time it takes to read them, etc) I don't believe that anonymous domain 
> name registrations are necessary.
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150629/817f0fe6/attachment.html>