Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Seeks Comment On Limiting Anonymized Domain Registration

angry tapir writes: Privacy advocates are sounding the alarm over a potential policy change (PDF) that would prevent some people from registering website addresses without revealing their personal information. ICANN, the regulatory body that oversees domain names, has asked for public comment on whether it should prohibit the private registration of domains which are "associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions."

6 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. hmmm by pfredphotos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    prohibit the private registration of domains which are "associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions

    I'm not sure I have a big problem with this. If you do business with a company that can just disappear, that'd be a bummer. That said, you shouldn't do business with a company like that, but people aren't always smart.

    1. Re:hmmm by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably would have prevented Satoshi being anonymous when he launched bitcoin.org, and thus might have led to Bitcoin never existing at all.

  2. Why would they start caring now? by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ICANN has been pro-profit for some time now. They make more money by allowing registrars to sell anonymized domains than if they do not. The privacy question is just window dressing.

    In the end, though, it doesn't make much of a difference. I used to take the time to do WHOIS lookups on particularly egregious spamvertised domains (specifically ones selling counterfeit or contraband products) and contact their registrars and hosting providers. Did it make a difference? No. I even found that specific registrars were notably complacent and willing to do business with the characters behind such operations, so I reported said registrars to ICANN. Did ICANN do anything? No.

    I also pointed out to ICANN that selling gTLDs would be a bad idea as it opened the floodgates to more such doings. Did they care? No.

    In other words, if you are concerned that ICANN might start to prohibit anonymized registration, don't be. They are just trying to drum up some PR to make it look like they care about more than their bottom line. It will all pass soon.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  3. Well... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a feeling all the people who are talking about their privacy being invaded have yet to read the summary. It specifically mentions websites associated with "business and financial transactions". Are you proposing that to run a legitimate business, you don't ever have to reveal to your customers such basic things like a phone number or a mailing address? I find it awfully hard to trust a business that doesn't want any interaction with its customers whatsoever.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Well... by bitwise+counselor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Showing advertisements is classified as running a commercial business. I don't think I would want my personal details divulged just for showing advertisements to cover hosting costs.

    2. Re:Well... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you proposing that to run a legitimate business, you don't ever have to reveal to your customers such basic things like a phone number or a mailing address?

      Actually, this happens all the time.

      I have purchased ads from Google, and I have never been given their address. Google goes out of their way to make sure there is no way to find a human for technical support. Same goes for Steam, eBay, PayPal. Today companies give you a forum and expect the community to support themselves. It's almost impossible to find them unless they sell a physical product.