Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Private .US Registrations Disallowed by NTIA 370

Posted by samzenpus from the no-.us-for-you dept.
jnetsurfer writes "Apparently, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") has decided that domains under the TLD .US have no right to privacy. New domain names ending in .US will not be able to be registered as "private" and current owners of .US names will be forced to reveal their contact information starting "no later than January 26, 2006". This means that you can't run an annonymous website with a .US TLD. If you don't like this, feel free to sign the petition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Private .US Registrations Disallowed by NTIA More

Private .US Registrations Disallowed by NTIA

Comments Filter:

  • I'd sign the petition... (Score:5, Funny)

    by drafalski ( 232178 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:02AM (#12098891)
    ...but I don't want to give out my name, adress, email, et cetera.
    • Every right has an attached responsibility.

      I.e. Your right to freedom of expression is cool as long as you don't express yourself by shutting up other people.

      Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things. Most of them wrong. I.e. you can knowingly publish libelous material as long as nobody knows it was put out by you.

      Worse yet, you can register a domain, which suggests you are somebody else and then put out information damaging to that person. I.e. r_kelly.us

      • Re:I'd sign the petition... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:28AM (#12099020)
        Of course, there is a huge problem with putting domain ownership contact information out in the public. Not everyone is a business and not everyone has a PO box.

        There are plenty of ignorant people out there who can only react to differing opinions, beliefs or behavior with threats and violence. I run a very popular niche goth site and, while I'm not exactly goth myself, there are a lot of people out there who react to things like the school shooting this month by making threats to anyone they can find that fits whatever their own perverted (media-given) impression of a "goth" or "punk" is.

        Or, perhaps, a woman running an abortion rights action site who would like to keep her information private. Last thing you want to be is in the crosshairs of some religious nut who believes god is directing him or her to save the fetuses by blowing your brains out.

        There are any number of valid reasons to want to maintain some sort of privacy to keep the freaks and nutcases from tracking you down. The most violent thing I've ever seen a goth kid do is pick his nose. But I tell you, I sure was thinking about going into hiding recently when the school shooting occurred.
        • Depending on your registrar, you can have them act as a proxy for contact. ie:
          whois grub.net
          and you'll see all my stuff goes through NetSol. It costs a few dollars (peanuts), my email isn't harvested that way and best of all: no one knows I live in Winnipeg^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

        • niche goth site

          Repeating yourself I see. ;-)

        • If you are doing something that you know is going to be a lightning-rod for whacko's, depending on an Anonymous domain registration is going to get you killed. the minimum would be a registering under a DBA owned by a corpartion, owned by a DBA, owned by a corpartion formed in another state by a DBA owned by a corparation, using a mail-drop as an address, forwarding to a P.O. box, and phones answered by a staffed answering compnay, forwarding calls to an unlisted number.

          I Know of a guy who was a Dermatolog

      • Re:I'd sign the petition... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:47AM (#12099130) Journal
        Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things. Most of them wrong. I.e. you can knowingly publish libelous material as long as nobody knows it was put out by you.
        • Don't get spammed much do you? I recently registered two domains, both will have a quasi-business site on them, both very valid public sites. I registered them privately on purpose, I don't want any more spam because of domain registrations.

        • Back in the mid 1990s I registered two domains. Spam wasn't the problem it is now at the time, and I used a permanent E-mail address. A few years after that I started getting spammed constantly, mostly trying to push other domains or other domain registars at me, along with the weak phishing-type scams trying to make me think my domain had expired. Since then, even though the domains no longer exist, the amount of spam at that address has risen drastically. It gets hundreds a day now, and most of them can be attributed back to registering two domain names. Personally I think you'd be nuts to register a domain either non-privately or with any real contact info nowadays. Spammers will still mine the whois databases, they don't care about the rules prohibiting it.

          There are other good reasons as well. What about people who have a stalker? Rape victims or other violent crime victims? Identity theft victims, or those wanting to avoid becoming one? Political activists who don't want bricks thrown through their windows by overzealous people of opposite beliefs?

          There are many VERY good reasons to want a private registration, very few of which are "wrong". Private registration also does not mean you're free from the law. My real contact info is in escrow with the proxy service, if they get a subpoena they will release my real info to the police. I'm still bound by the law, I just am no longer bound by the spammers.

      • Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things. Most of them wrong. I.e. you can knowingly publish libelous material as long as nobody knows it was put out by you.

        The ruling specifically impacts information published publicly. If you are required to provide accurate information for a non-published database, then there's no real issue. Law enforcement and legal proceedings can learn the true identity of the domain's owner and act accordingly.

      • I have a web site where I sometimes post pictures of my family. I privately registered the domain because I didn't want some wacko coming across it and then easily being able to get my address. Mind you the address is not publicly published anyway, but it was an easy measure to take for just a bit more protection.
      • Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things. Most of them wrong. I.e. you can knowingly publish libelous material as long as nobody knows it was put out by you.

        If you run any sort of mail server that accepts email from webmaster@, hostmaster@, root@, and various others including common usernames you will see an endless amount of spam coming through.

        There's no reason to have address information available to the public other than when requested to the company hand
      • Likewise, an anonymously registered and maintained TLD is useful for only a few things.

        I use a company that masks my domain registration info. It puts their info instead for any WHOIS lookups. Then, when they receive e-mail that is meant for the listed e-mail address for my domain, they filter out all of the spam and forward an relevent mail to the e-mail address that I have on file with them. It ensures that I have a way to get e-mails regarding my domain without having to sift through all of the spam.

  • Who cares, it's a stupid domain anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:03AM (#12098894)
    Get a .COM

  • don't forget the ICANN 2$ tax (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ICANN imposes $2 internet tax [theregister.co.uk]

    ethics is so overrated (see us gov for examples) you would think people would have a bit more integrity
    can you imagine what a mess the Internet is gonna be in 10 years, you think spam and commercialism is bad now, shame because it could of been so much more

  • Godaddy (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheFlu ( 213162 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:05AM (#12098899) Homepage
    Here's the email I received from Godaddy.com regarding this issue:

    "Today I have the unfortunate responsibility of informing you that there has been a decision made by bureaucrats of a Federal agency that takes away your right to privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

    This decision was unilaterally made by the National Telecommunications and Information Association ("NTIA") www.ntia.doc.gov [doc.gov] without hearings that would determine the impact on those affected, and delivered without notice -- in short, the NTIA decision was made without due process of any kind. This is exactly how our government is not supposed to work.

    The effect of this decision is to disallow new private domain name registrations on .US domain names. In addition, if you already own a private .US domain name registration, you will be forced to forfeit your privacy no later than January 26, 2006. By that time, you will need to choose between either making your personal information available to anyone who wants to see it, or giving up your right to that domain name.

    I personally find it ironic that our right to .US privacy was stripped away, without due process, by a federal government agency -- an agency that should be looking out for our individual rights. For the NTIA to choose the .US extension is the ultimate slap in your face. .US is the only domain name that is specifically intended for Americans (and also those who have a physical presence in our great country). So think about this for a moment. These bureaucrats stripped away the privacy that you're entitled to as an American, on the only domain name that says that you are an American. I am outraged by this -- you should be also.

    If, like me, you are outraged at the NTIA's decision to strip away our constitutional right to privacy, www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com [thedangerofnoprivacy.com] will provide you with a petition to sign. (Only your name will be published, your address and email information will be kept private.) This Web site also provides a very easy way for you to send either a fax or an email, expressing your outrage, to your Congressperson and Senators. This is all provided at no cost to you. All that is required is for you to take the time to visit www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com [thedangerofnoprivacy.com] sign the petition, and send the fax or email to your legislators.

    On my personal Blog, www.BobParsons.com [bobparsons.com] there are a number of articles where you can learn more about the NTIA's unfortunate decision and what you can do to help get it reversed.

    I also will be talking about our right to privacy on Radio Go Daddy, our weekly radio show that debuts today, March 30, at 7 PM PST. To find out how to listen in, please visit the Web site dedicated to the show, www.RadioGoDaddy.com [radiogodaddy.com].

    You can be sure that I, and everyone at GoDaddy.com, will do everything in our power to get the NTIA decision reversed. However, we need your help. Please visit www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com [thedangerofnoprivacy.com] to sign the petition and express your feelings to your Congressperson and Senators.

    Sincerely,

    Bob Parsons
    President and Founder
    GoDaddy.com"

    • Re:Godaddy (Score:3, Informative)

      by warkda rrior ( 23694 )
      Bob says:
      These bureaucrats stripped away the privacy that you're entitled to as an American

      There is no such entitlement (compared to EU, for example).

      • Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:28AM (#12099017) Homepage Journal

        The constitutional right to privacy in the United States springs from an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure combined with the et-cetera clauses in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

        • Privacy is not the same as annonymity (see the recent Hibble case - which I was a bit disappointed with). Domains are used on the net - a very public place. Doesn't it make sense that someone should be able to see who a site is registered to? People want total annoymity and then bitch about spam.

          Slashdot over reacts to some things...

        • Re:Constitutional right to privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @09:29AM (#12099444)
          When you buy land, or register a name for your business, you have to provide certain details about yourself to your local government, which becomes public information.

          Why is this any different? Why does a "constitutional right to privacy" not apply to these situations, but should apply to someone registering a DNS domain? A DNS domain is intended to reflect an administrative domain over Internet infrastructure. We need published contact information if you intend on connecting infrastructure to the Internet when that infrastructure is significant enough to warrant its own second-level DNS domain. If you intend to (ab)use a DNS domain as a content label for your Interweb content, you need to be aware of what the DNS domain is intended to represent, and be prepared to abide by the requirements that result from that even though you aren't using your DNS domain for what it was designed.

          It's like me going downtown and buying a lot of land just so that I can post some signs carrying some anti-government statements, and then balking because the evil government wants me to identify myself as the owner of that parcel of land. I don't have to own that land in order to exercise my right to free speech. You don't have to own your own little DNS domain in order to have a web outlet for your content.

          • What you're saying is true as far as it goes, but there are perfectly fine ways to satisfy both interests here - you can provide working contact info without actually revealing your identity to the entire world.

        • > an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment

          Holy crap, someone ELSE on the planet knows this. I keep having to explain this over and over to people who claim there's no right to privacy in the Constitution except under the catch-all clause of the tenth amendment. You have just restored some small amount of my faith in humanity.

          What concerns me is that people feel that knowing who owns a given domain name is an unreasonable search. When you operate a public presence like a domain name, you *normally* hav

          • Im not sure this is analogous to Broadcasting since public airwaves are not in use... and although a large publishing operation is public a small stereotypical poorly xeroxed socialist news letter could be distributed with a reasonable degree of anonymity.

            Im not entirely sure how I feel about this yet... but it does seem like having an outlet with anonymity might be a good thing.

    • Re:Godaddy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ron Bennett ( 14590 )
      GoDaddy's founder makes some good points, but the primary reason for GoDaddy bulk mailing that is they stand to lose money because they will no longer be able to offer "private" (proxy) .US registrations.

      GoDaddy's practices leave something to be desired - anyone running anything even remotely controversal, especially if adult/porn related, does best to avoid GoDaddy when registering the hosting domain(s).

      Ron Bennett
    • Well, my registrar (home.pl) doesn't even allow non-private registrations.

      Just check the whois [dnsstuff.com] record for angband.pl [angband.pl]...

      On the other hand, GoDaddy considers privacy to be an "extra service".

    • "Today I have the unfortunate responsibility of informing you that there has been a decision made by bureaucrats of a Federal agency that takes away your right to privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

      What exactly is the article in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees privacy? Maybe I'm an ignorant foreigner (Dutchman), but I was always under the impression that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee privacy. Am I wrong?

      The referenced website talks about the "First Amendment rights

  • Use a third-party to register your domain (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:06AM (#12098905)
    There are many third parties [whoisprotector.com] that will register your domain name with valid contact information that isn't related to you at all.

    Other than that, it should be pointed out that ICANN has had a rule for years that you must have valid contact information in your WHOIS records. Of course, they've also ignored that same rule for years.
    • Aw crap, you beat me to saying "use (trusted) third parties to register your domain name." *sigh*

      So while we're on the topic of third parties, some questions:

      - has there been any discussion surrounding banning the use of these third parties?

      - what are the laws/rules/liabilities/etc. regarding the relationship between third parties and the government, and third parties and their customers, in dealing with issues between the government and a customer?


    • And when the government sends a subpeona to the 'third party' for your name, it takes an extra 5 minutes for them to track you down. I'm sorry, but if you are hosting something bad enough (or spamming millions of messages I guess) for the FBI or whoever to come after you, a third party registrar isn't going to help much.
    • At one time, individuals weren't even supposed to be able to register domain names - domains were intended to be registered to organizations.

      Ron
    • There are many third parties that will register your domain name with valid contact information that isn't related to you at all.
      • That's just slightly different than what the NTIA is prohibiting, I'm sure they'll get around to stopping this as well. I have a few domains registered privately through GoDaddy so I can avoid spam. They place my real contact info in escrow with a proxy service and the proxy service shows up in the whois info. Here's an example:

        • Registrant:
          Domains by Proxy, Inc.
          Do

  • Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:07AM (#12098909)
    I was under the impression that DNS ownership records for other TLDs (E.g. .com) had to be publically? At least in theory, it should also be geniune and correct.

    Why should .us be a special case? Being able to find accurate data from a simple whois is an important tool for a lot of network administrators.
    • Information provided by third party domain registrants give you a layer of protection from who sees your personal information. I see it as a good idea, of all the domains I've registered for future use not a single one hasn't been spammed to hell because of crawlers parsing information off new registrations. Luckily my spamassassin is well-configured and I can identify junk snail-mail pretty quick, but most people aren't so fortunate.

      This isn't designed to protect us from the law, it's a means to have a li

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Erik Hensema ( 12898 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:07AM (#12098910) Homepage
    One less TLD for spammers to abuse.

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)

      by Godman ( 767682 )
      One less? You didn't RTFA. This makes ALL us registrations public, meaning that you can't, for a fee, keep your information out of the whois records. This is one more domain for the spammers to harvest from.
      • He could have read the article, you just don't know what a TLD is. It stands for "top-level domain."

        example.us is not a TLD. Neither is example.com. .us is a TLD. So is .com.

  • Abolition of non-country post-fixed TLD (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:08AM (#12098918)
    I believe that all .com and .net etc... should be a subset of a country suffix. Too many companys and organisations hide their origin as .com is too generic.
    and this to me blurrs what specific law applies to what information.

  • So get a domain in Denmark (Score:5, Informative)

    by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:09AM (#12098922) Journal
    The Danish hostmaster recognize the individuals right to privacy, and if you wish to be "unlisted" you can be. Of course they know who you are, and break the law they'll hand over your information to the police.

  • toys (Score:2, Funny)

    by 404forbidden ( 872210 )
    does this mean i can t run a toys r us anonymously ?

  • What I don't like... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:11AM (#12098933)
    ...is having to pay extra for my domain to be "private"... at least with godaddy.com.

    I got an e-mail from godaddy yesterday about this ruling, and the whole time I was reading it I was thinking of how godaddy is almost hypocritical in sending such an e-mail.

    They want you to sign the petition to allow you to register the .US domain anonymously, but they still want you to pay extra for it.

    Anonymity should be free.

  • Fuc.kthe.us (Score:3, Funny)

    by Indy Media Watch ( 823624 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:12AM (#12098936) Homepage
    The owner of the domain fuc.kthe.us - reported here [blogspot.com] probably isn't going to like this...

  • Links to decision? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jumbo Jimbo ( 828571 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:17AM (#12098954)
    This is an interesting story but the Original poster gives 2 links to the petition website [thedangerofnoprivacy.com] but not links to the decision by the NTIA.

    By following the link from the petition site to the NTIA home page, there's nothing there about this particular decision, and some preliminary hunting hasn't shown up the relevant article for this.

    Most of the time us Slashdot readers can find the information for ourselves, but here we are being asked to sign a petition based on the evidence presented by the poster, not by reading the docs for ourselves (of cause we would all have RTFA if it was posted, obviously). I think it's a bit underhand asking us to sign this petition on an obsure decision that is not easy to find, without providing a link to the decision.

    If anyone can find a link to the decision I'd be very grateful.

    • Bob Parsons, founder of GoDaddy blogged [bobparsons.com] on the subject recently. I actually discovered this via a mass-mail sent out from GoDaddy. Unfortunately I already deleted the email, but it had some insight as to how this actually happened under everyone's nose.

  • What's the big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmcmunn ( 307798 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:19AM (#12098962)

    Most of us will pay to register them with a credit card or a check or something with our identity attached to it anyway. If anyone really wanted to find out who owns/runs the domain it wouldn't be too hard. Most of the time, they could also figure it out by tracing where it is hosted and finding some information on who pays the bills there as well.

    If you want a free (and anonymous) web page, sign up for some cheesy service online where you are a subdomain of someone else. If not, then pony up and give some legit information to the company you buy the domain from.

  • NTIA Follow up statement (Score:5, Funny)

    by nixfixer ( 859993 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:20AM (#12098974) Homepage
    All your domains are belong to .US

  • .US Registry Censors Domains Too ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ron Bennett ( 14590 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:25AM (#12099000) Homepage
    The .US Registry has disabled and locked numerous .US domains containing "dirty" words alone, regardless of whether the domains were actually used or not.

    So much for freedom of speech and expression in .US - but then America is full of contradictions :(

    I've owned FuckCensorship.COM / .ORG / .NET for years and never had any problems ... yet, my FuckCensorship.US domain was only active for a short time and then disabled/locked.

    In short, .US domains are best avoided for anything critical ... not solely because of the censorship issues, but rather more so because the .US Registry changes polices willy nilly with little regard to registrants.

    Domain Name FUCKCENSORSHIP.US
    Domain ID D1877066-US
    Sponsoring Registrar INTERCOSMOS MEDIA GROUP, INC. D.B.A. DIRECTNIC.COM
    Domain Status serverDeleteProhibited
    Domain Status serverTransferProhibited
    Domain Status serverUpdateProhibited
    Registrant ID IMG-146583
    Registrant Name Ron Bennett
    Registrant Organization Ron Bennett
    Registrant Address1 PO BOX 6532
    Registrant City Wyomissing
    Registrant State/Province PA
    Registrant Postal Code 19610-0532
    Registrant Country United States
    Registrant Country Code US
    Registrant Phone Number +1.6107776566
    Registrant Email bennett@wyomissing.com
    Registrant Application Purpose P1
    Registrant Nexus Category C11
    Administrative Contact ID IMG-146583
    Administrative Contact Name Ron Bennett
    Administrative Contact Organization Ron Bennett
    Administrative Contact Address1 PO BOX 6532
    Administrative Contact City Wyomissing
    Administrative Contact State/Province PA
    Administrative Contact Postal Code 19610-0532
    Administrative Contact Country United States
    Administrative Contact Country Code US
    Administrative Contact Phone Number +1.6107776566
    Administrative Contact Email bennett@wyomissing.com
    Administrative Contact Application Purpose P1
    Administrative Contact Nexus Category C11
    Billing Contact ID IMG-146583
    Billing Contact Name Ron Bennett
    Billing Contact Organization Ron Bennett
    Billing Contact Address1 PO BOX 6532
    Billing Contact City Wyomissing
    Billing Contact State/Province PA
    Billing Contact Postal Code 19610-0532
    Billing Contact Country United States
    Billing Contact Country Code US
    Billing Contact Phone Number +1.6107776566
    Billing Contact Email bennett@wyomissing.com
    Billing Contact Application Purpose P1
    Billing Contact Nexus Category C11
    Technical Contact ID IMG-146583
    Technical Contact Name Ron Bennett
    Technical Contact Organization Ron Bennett
    Technical Contact Address1 PO BOX 6532
    Technical Contact City Wyomissing
    Technical Contact State/Province PA
    Technical Contact Postal Code 19610-0532
    Technical Contact Country United States
    Technical Contact Country Code US
    Technical Contact Phone Number +1.6107776566
    Technical Contact Email bennett@wyomissing.com
    Technical Contact Application Purpose P1
    Technical Contact Nexus Category C11
    Name Server INVALIDNS1.NEUSTAR.COM
    Name Server INVALIDNS2.NEUSTAR.COM
    Created by Registrar INTERCOSMOS MEDIA GROUP, INC. D.B.A. DIRECTNIC.COM
    Last Updated by Registrar BATCHCSR
    Domain Registration Date Wed Apr 24 17:52:47 GMT+00:00 2002
    Domain Expiration Date Sat Apr 23 23:59:59 GMT+00:00 2005
    Domain Last Updated Date Sat Apr 24 04:35:46 GMT+00:00 2004

    Whois database was last updated on: Thu Mar 31 13:14:23 GMT 2005

  • Ban Dihydrogen Oxide!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by ecklesweb ( 713901 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @08:28AM (#12099023)
    The thing that aggravated me about godaddy's letter (yeah, I got that email too) is that there is absolutely NO information directly from the NTIA about what the policy is, says, how it was arrived at, what the goal is, or when they believe the results will be. This petition drive has thus far been a completely one-sided story. As a result, I have to think that anyone who would sign the petition, save those that have managed to dig up more info that I have, are just drinking the koolaid.

    I will fault NTIA for apparently having no mention of the policy on their website (at least last time I checked yesterday). There's no rational reason for them to either set new policy like this or start enforcing existing policy without hearings or public comment. It's even less excuable that after the fact they won't provide their side of the story. They refused comment in the couple of media stories I saw about this.

    By the way, that's right, it's not a new policy, it's enforcement of a previously unenforced existing policy. So for that, I think some blame may lay on the registrars who allowed proxy registrations for .us domains. Shame on them if they failed to inform the registrants that a proxy registration of a .us domain was technically a violation of NTIA policy. If they did inform registrants, then the registrants should have seen this coming.

  • If you have 1. a domain you probably also will have 2. a website which probably will have 3. content.
    3. can consist of all kinds of 4. data which in turn can contain 5. encoded information.

    Just this slightest possibility will make you 6. a terrorist and therefore all you 7. civil rights will be taken from you untill further notice.

    Am I negative? NO WAY! In the Netherlands there are plans to force ISP's to log and keep track of theur users. Websites they visited, mails they've sent and so on and so on.

    Ey.

  • Good! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My inbox and referrer logs are full of spam from holders of .us registrations - to the point that I've considered just blocking the entire TLD. If it were harder to cover your tracks when making a domain registration, then it'd be easier for me to take holders of domains seriously.

    You don't need an anonymous domain registration to run an anonymous Web site. You don't need a domain registration to run a Web site at all. Domain registrations aren't anonymous anyway - your information is still vulnerable t
  • ...is this: I don't care one way or another, if I have to go through an intermediary to contact the people controlling the domain, or directly through a whois lookup. All I care about is that there is a legit way to reach them--no false information listed. The people who make these decisions should weed out all the fake registrations first before anything else.
    • I agree.. the only issue with that approach is that it requires the intermediary to act as a proxy and to use their own judgment before allowing your message through, or in providing their client's contact information.

      Further, if you have some form of network emergency and need to contact the domain holder immediately, you're not just limited by the availability (business hours?) of the domain holder, but by the availability (business hours) of all of the proxies in between.

      In short, just having contact i

  • Yawn. (Score:2)

    by base3 ( 539820 )
    What's really interesting is how they let Neustar stop maintaining the locality domains, as they are required to do under their contract. Why isn't the Commerce department on their asses about that?

  • If ICANN, UCAN2! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by http101 ( 522275 ) on Thursday March 31, 2005 @09:44AM (#12099593) Homepage
    The ironic part is, anyone saying this is going to stop spammers from sending spam, IS WRONG. Spam is mostly send from over-seas servers and enters the US from, you guessed it, a big fat internet pipeline. Sure, the spammers might get a phone call or two, but the spamming won't stop.

    As for providing false information, an article on the CircleID website quotes, "It is now illegal to provide false information when registering a domain name." It goes on to say, "Last year, there was a brief attempt to make registrars responsible for the accuracy of the Whois database. Fortunately, that legislation failed. What did become law was a new, stiff penalty (7 years) for providing false WHOIS information. While this looming jail time might have some sway over US-based crooks, it will do little to get accurate information from those who live overseas." As I mentioned before, this is merely a flesh-wound in stopping the spam-war.

    My greatest fear is having someone show up on my doorstep with intent to harm my family, property, or myself because that person wants my domain name. And as it seems with almost every law in America, it takes spilled blood to have those laws abolished or less, modified in some feeble attempt to make a slight few of us happy.

    What needs to happen is the placement of an organization who tracks the "licensing" of domains and their registrants. If I were to require contact with a site operator, I would first have to call them to obtain contact information, however, that information would be limited to a mailing address, NOT a home address, name, phone number, and email.

    Registration would require a name and a mailing address (NOT a home address). If a mailing address is not possible, then a phone number and email may be relinquished by the domain host. The registrant has the option of unlisting this information completely, however, contact/complaints must be made through the organization. A failure to comply with requests from the organization within 30 calendar days would ultimately mean a "freeze" on the domain. After 90 days (60 days from the beginning of a domain freeze), the domain is wiped off the face of the internet. This should light a fire under anyone's ass.

    This may not sound like the most 'perfect' plan, though is a lot better than what's in place now. And you may be thinking, "we already have an organization that does that," but no, ICANN functions like a cat, lying around all day, looking pretty, propping up a leg in the corner of the room to lick itself and essentially, just look pretty. We need an organization that isn't afraid of grabbing some sack to make things happen.
  • There is no "right" to anonymity anywhere that I am aware of.

    Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    (BTW, privacy != anonymity)
  • I thought that the story was about restricting private persons from registering .US domains. But then, I own a .ca domain.

  • So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <.syberghost. .at. .syberghost.com.> on Thursday March 31, 2005 @04:22PM (#12104232)
    If the domain reserved for a country shouldn't be run by the government of that country, who the hell should run it?

    The government makes decisions like this. If you like the decisions, you vote for the same people next time. If you don't, you vote for somebody else. If most of the people who vote disagree with you, you cowboy up and live with it, or move.

    Use a different domain if you want to be anonymous.

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?

Close