3 ms·
A similar discussion got posted to Reddit a while back, and nobody seems to be mentioning that the phrase that has everybody so riled up ("domains used for onli
by teraflop 11y ago
A similar discussion got posted to Reddit a while back, and nobody seems to be mentioning that the phrase that has everybody so riled up ("domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for [WHOIS] privacy and proxy registrations") is taken entirely out of context. If you read the actual document, it's clear that this is a suggestion from a few specific parties to the discussion, and it is emphatically not the opinion of the ICANN working group as a whole, much less does it rise to the status of a "proposed rule". From the PDF: (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-e...)
> The WG agrees that the status of a registrant as a commercial organization, non-commercial organization, or individual should not be the driving factor in whether P/P services are available to the registrant. Fundamentally, P/P services should remain available to registrants irrespective of their status as commercial or non-commercial organizations or as individuals.
...
> As noted above, the WG agrees that the mere fact of a domain being registered by a commercial entity, or by anyone conducting commercial activity in other spheres, should not prevent the use of P/P services. In addition, a majority of WG members did not think it either necessary or practical to prohibit domain names being actively used for commercial activity from using P/P services.
...
> the WG does not believe that P/P registrations should be limited to private individuals who use their domains for non-commercial purposes.
I think it's telling that the vast majority of feedback came from members of the public who read Namecheap's call-to-action at https://www.respectourprivacy.com/ https://www.respectourprivacy.com/. As an outsider, it looks to me like Namecheap and the EFF are purposely distorting the situation to drum up some positive PR.
- icebraining 11y agoI don't see the EFF saying that ICANN is as a whole of that opinion; what they said is that there is such a proposal, and that ICANN is considering it (which they are, and which is why they're asking for external input).
- nitrogen 11y agoDidn't ICANN recently introduce a "steal your domain if you fail to click a link in our phishing email" policy? If so, they can't be trusted not to do something else crazy, like enact this other anti-privacy policy being discussed here.