[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contractibility, PBC and required contact methods....

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:06:39PM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
> One of these two examples is non-public though and non-authorized entities
> do not get access.

I think that depends on the jurisdiction; and in any case, we haven't
got to the authorization and authentication discussion yet, so the
fact that one needs to be authenticated and authorized for access
hardly seems an argument about why not to collect the data at all.

> But that is beside the point. If I want to serve a private individual in the
> US with a law suit for an infringement or damages caused by him, I need to
> find out where he lives on my own. If I get hit by a bike, there is no
> bicycle whois to help me. If I get hit by a Segway, there is no Segway
> whois. If I am pushed into a ditch by a jogger, there is no jogger whois.
> There is no citizens' register with their addresses. Try to serve someone
> who recently moved or who does not want to be found.

But it's _not_ beside the point, because part of the point is
precisely that there is a trade-off that people make in these matters.
If you want to have a car, you need to register it.  If you are
unwilling to register it, then you don't get to have a car, period.
(You can, of course, do fancy things like use a company to register
your car and then effectively rent it all the time.  This might be
like a privacy or proxy registration case.)  And while it's true that
there's no registration authority for legs, we _do_ have such
registries in some areas of restricted access.  If you want to run
around in some places, you have to register, and collect a badge and
sometimes have your picture taken and so on.  You better believe that,
if you push someone into a rack while running through most well-run
data centres, there absolutely is a rack-pusher whois.  It's the
security desk, and they will find you so they can rescind your access.

In other areas, we have decided that the risk is not worth the
registration hassle, so we don't make such rules for bikes and Segways
(though one wonders whether that was wise).  In Ontario, at least,
mopeds have to be registered, so there is some continuum.

I cannot tell whether you are simply attempting to pick your analogues
to fit your conclusion, or whether you are arguing in effect that
domain names are more like bikes than cars: they're not dangerous
enough to require registration.  If you are claiming the latter, then
I think you need a better argument than just insisting that they're
similar.  (I hope it's obvious why the former doesn't even require a
rebuttal.)  If we are going to throw over the existing practice of
requiring the collection registration information, then we need to
have some reason why the historical reasons for such collection are no
longer in effect.  You don't seem to be providing such an argument so
far.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com