Have you hugged your WHOIS privacy provider today?

[Rob Monster]

Many registrars provide WHOIS privacy services. I won't name ours because that would be promotional, strictly forbidden by Namepros moderators and severely punished! However, I do simply want to acknowledge that running a compliant WHOIS privacy proxy services in 2019 is a bunch of work, especially if a UDRP action is involved. This case reveals a changing tone on privacy.

I am attaching a procedural document from a WIPO panelist who is giving me a hard time in a case where the respondent asked me to dump their domain. It now happens routinely that a complainant's counsel won't simply accept the domain name, but rather will turn the matter into a drawn-out case with multiple interrogatories, wasting everyone's time for a domain that the complainant would prefer to hand over.

In this particular case, the registrant had previously advised us that he was not interested in defending a UDRP on his domains, which in this case was one domain in a large portfolio of .CO domains. So, in the interest of pragmatism, we sought to settle the matter. In the process, we would save the complainant some fees. Win-win and less work in the end. So, did that work out? Nope!

WHOIS privacy compliance is getting harder and harder. The active discussions at ICANN, including this week in Montreal, further reinforce the direction that Law Enforcement and Regulatory authorities want, which is to be able to pierce the privacy veil whenever they darned well please. I have an issue with that and have stated my position without equivocation in the ICANN Registrar Stakeholder Group.

Nevertheless, the policy changes with RDAP march forward, and it is rapidly approaching a foregone conclusion that a pillar of online privacy is being toppled right now in the closing months of 2019.

Our WHOIS privacy service which shall not be named is in fact an ICANN compliant WHOIS privacy proxy. It is a separate legal entity set up for the express purpose of serving as an ownership proxy for the registrant. From a legal perspective, the WHOIS privacy proxy is the registrant's agent.

All this said, I have been unequivocal that at Epik we do not protect people who are engaged in criminality. If there is a court order, we comply. Beyond that, we have openly stated that known criminality is not operating in a protected class at Epik. The job of discernment is not an easy one but it is comes with the territory. So, make sure to hug your WHOIS privacy provider. They have your back more than you know!

 

[Bernard Wright]

After having just transferred some names out from registrars that required privacy be disabled before transfer, I have a newfound appreciation for Anonymize. I dropcatched a name once and then (thought I) had to spring for an extra ~$9 for privacy. I know I'm not the only one. And I'm sure there are plenty of folks paying yearly for privacy at registrars with their renewals. So much money wasted. I'm glad Rob has 1) created the service, and 2) made it known.

Folks are free to air their frustrations regarding the promotional tilt to Rob's posts, but it's plain to see that he and his team are doing a lot for our community, and for the Internet as a whole ...and in this case, Anonymize is free. Worth a thread imo.

And even the paid-for services Rob mentions in his posts/threads are very worthwhile. It seems like a large number of new threads created by NP members these days lack value to the community. Folks try to inflate their new niche idea or some other shtick. Many threads appear to be dopamine-driven from the rush of fresh regs and a few visits on their landers; nothing of substance. Rob's solutions are real, and like him or not, his threads are among the most interesting and worthwhile on these boards.

Thanks for making privacy free, Rob.

 

[Rob Monster]

After having just transferred some names out from registrars that required privacy be disabled before transfer, I have a newfound appreciation for Anonymize. I dropcatched a name once and then (thought I) had to spring for an extra ~$9 for privacy. I know I'm not the only one. And I'm sure there are plenty of folks paying yearly for privacy at registrars with their renewals. So much money wasted. I'm glad Rob has 1) created the service, and 2) made it known.

Folks are free to air their frustrations regarding the promotional tilt to Rob's posts, but it's plain to see that he and his team are doing a lot for our community, and for the Internet as a whole ...and in this case, Anonymize is free. Worth a thread imo.

And even the paid-for services Rob mentions in his posts/threads are very worthwhile. It seems like a large number of new threads created by NP members these days lack value to the community. Folks try to inflate their new niche idea or some other shtick. Many threads appear to be dopamine-driven from the rush of fresh regs and a few visits on their landers; nothing of substance. Rob's solutions are real, and like him or not, his threads are among the most interesting and worthwhile on these boards.

Thanks for making privacy free, Rob.

Well, let's just make one thing clear:

- Setting up WHOIS privacy is not hard.

- Making WHOIS privacy is not hard.

- Protecting privacy in the face of extrajudicial inquiry from bullies and thugs is what is hard.

We do all 3 -- and that is what is hard and worth demanding of your WHOIS privacy provider.

We also have to apply ongoing intelligence because the apparatus and practices being used to pierce the privacy veil are constantly evolving as we have seen recently with RDAP and WIPO.

I am thankful for anyone who can provide ongoing reconnaissance in these matters since we prefer to not by blindsided by these ongoing changes in tactics by those who believe the right to privacy is illusory.

 

[Name Trader]

I want my customers to find me
how about you?

Dynadot does this with 3 types of privacy settings for free, None, Full, and Partial. The 1st 2 are self-explanatory. The partial is Full privacy, with the ability to change the Registrant Name. They give you about 30 characters to use as you like, and they tack on c/o Dynadot after what you have added. I use this to promote the domain at my Domain For Sale website. I'm very satisfied with this compromise. I have asked for this to be linkable, but so far not available.

 

[Name Trader]

One very important feature would be to somehow verify the identity of the complainant as the legitimate TM holder (I don't see how this could be done without manual/analogue involvement by the Ombudsman or someone else). Because after a while, the process could and likely would be a serious target of phishers trying to steal domains!

EDIT .. It should be to identify who they say they are .. as obviously the legitimacy is what's in question here.

Also, as part of (B), a checklist the complainant would need to tick indicating they are taking this action because they feel each of the 3 equivalent of the UDRP requirements have been breached. Basically they're being required to check all 3 would be a filtration process eliminating a lot of random uninformed complaints.

(D) I like the concept of a potential pre-UDRP compromise, but I'm hesitant to bring money into play here. It kinda takes away from getting to the fundamental truth of the matter.

Maybe have a section for "additional comments", where as part of the form, the instructions for that section could include "Suggested comments include: 1) Proposed compensation 2) etc ...". Even then .. the process should be about if the complainant legitimately has the right to the domain or not .. if they do, then they should ultimately get the domain .. if not, then they need to buy the domain outside of the process if they want it.

Maybe have a money field only if less than all 3 requirements have been checked .. although in that case it's effectively a domain sale if you ask me. lol

I think the complainant should also state the authority where the trademark is registered. So that it can be looked up by the registrant. I hope this suggestion could be considered.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Date: Mar 5, 2020, 2:33pm EST

Facebook is suing a domain registrar for selling deceptive web addresses

https://www.namepros.com/threads/fa...-for-selling-deceptive-web-addresses.1179996/

 

[7363824]

Date: Mar 5, 2020, 2:33pm EST

Facebook is suing a domain registrar for selling deceptive web addresses

https://www.namepros.com/threads/fa...-for-selling-deceptive-web-addresses.1179996/

Ya I dont envy the stuff a whois privacy provider has to deal with. Really they should be shielded from liability just like Facebook is shielded from liability for what its users write on their site.

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

Thanks Rob

 

[lock]

I have my own whois site so i look like a boss as i do.