ICANN - No more domain privacy for you

  • That is what I expected to be the case, because in a way once you start making money from programs like AdSense. I'd expect you're going to be classed as a business site then making money.

    It's one of the many reasons I never ran ads. I thought about it... But never added any.

  • I don't use ads myself so not a problem for me either. But was curious about it for those that do who want to remain private in WhoIs. I guess they'll be stuffed, they won't be able to have it both ways.

  • That will not change with or without that safety, because you and everyone else will only be an anonymous screen name, just as you are here right now. The only difference is those predators will have someone they can actually target... YOU, since your name, address, and phone number will be freely available to anyone who can do a "who is" search.
    So your idea doesn't change that. It only empowers the predators who would just target the site owner as a means to an ends.


    As I'm sure someone would have loved to have done when a woman was speaking in favor of her faith and belief, but also defending the rights of women. She was nothing more than anonymous screen name, but those extremest would have loved nothing more than to put a bullet in my head for letting her speak.


    Terrorist and religious extremist don't see right or wrong as you or I do. They do not see accountability as you or I do. They deal in complete ablutie black and white, life or death for everything. And I would rather our society not empower them, but rather empower the woman who thought women should be treated as equals.

    A predator can target anyone at anytime, despite 'who is' disclosure or not, and no matter if met online or in the real world. We are at predators' harm's way all the time, even when going to class or to the theater, as we have all witnessed. Danger is around us, like it or not.


    By launching a forum discussion, one must be aware that along with meaningful discussions, the site will eventually attract predators, trolls, and general hostility. To be online is a conscious decision and a choice. To launch a site is conscious decision and a choice. Choices have consequences. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, that's how it works. In order to prevent their own safety, website owners must take preemptive steps to assure that. Stomping feet and crying that it is unfair and unjust is silly.


    The women who were able to fight and win against the stigma, abuse, and mistreatment they had endured for so long in America, fought their battle for endless decades, always head on. They put their faces and names, and paid the price for it. The were targeted, assaulted, humiliated, beaten, and worse. And yet, only thanks to those brave and courageous individuals, today women aren't as badly discriminated as before -- although there are still severe problems in that regard. Those women decided to voice their disagreement against their discrimination, and wanted to shake those norms and constructs that wanted society crystallized in a view where women were considered inferior and always subjected to men. Faces, names, loud voices and active actions are what might shake and change things. To own a discussion board and use it to point fingers behind a digital curtain is not a battle or a fight for one's rights. It's just a rant without a name.

  • The women who were able to fight and win against the stigma, abuse, and mistreatment they had endured for so long in America, fought their battle for endless decades, always head on. They put their faces and names, and paid the price for it. The were targeted, assaulted, humiliated, beaten, and worse. And yet, only thanks to those brave and courageous individuals, today women aren't as badly discriminated as before -- although there are still severe problems in that regard. Those women decided to voice their disagreement against their discrimination, and wanted to shake those norms and constructs that wanted society crystallized in a view where women were considered inferior and always subjected to men. Faces, names, loud voices and active actions are what might shake and change things. To own a discussion board and use it to point fingers behind a digital curtain is not a battle or a fight for one's rights. It's just a rant without a name.

    That is because in America, we didn't kill our women on sight or the people who aided them in their speech. Things would be a lot different if we had.


    You cannot decide what you should be liable and accountable for; that's just pretentious and biased.

    No more so than those who would decide for us, what exactly that detailed, and when whenever it suited them to do so.



    We're never going to agree...


    You see the world in more of an absolute line of thinking. I see the world the way it really is, not black or white, but gray. Your values would discourage many from speaking freely and safely, my values would empower people to speak freely and safely.


    You seems to believe in absolute accountability, regardless of the cost, the possible injustice, and loss of life. I believe in reasonable accountability, with reasonable protections based upon circumstances that may require them.


    We can both agree that corporation and individuals who sell products or services online should be brought to light (I think). I don't believe that part has been in dispute.



    The flaw in your argument that I cannot overcome is by your understanding of risk and freedom, everyone, everywhere on the planet has freedom of speech... Which is certainly not true. But I imagine you would argue that it is true, because there is nothing physically stopping someone from speaking, just as there is nothing physically stopping you from breathing... And that there is only consequences.


    And that line of thinking is illogic, because we after all... We all know, that not everyone, everywhere on the planet has freedom of speech, but by your logic... Everyone does.


    I fear we must agree to disagree. I see no reason to continue this conversation. I feel it would be irrational to do so. Our values are far too different


    It was nice talking you, just the same :)

    Edited 3 times, last by Aslan ().

  • That is because in America, we didn't kill our women on sight or the people who aided them in their speech. Things would be a lot different if we had.

    Right, in fact when George Sodini opened fire in that gym outside Pittsburgh didn't shoot three women on sight, and injured nine others, right? May I remind you that he, as other killers before and after him, specifically targeted women? Oh wait, this is America, and not some "savage" terrorist-filled and evil country, so we must simply justify and rationalize this "ghastly incident" or "put it into context" (ugh), and possibly dismiss it as statistics. Why don't we just shrug about it with an informed "it happens?"


    This is, if we don't count the many women, and those who helped them fight for their rights, that actually were not just killed, but were also subjugated, abused, considered and treated as objects, murdered in their houses by their husbands, with justice absolving the men on a constant basis, and worse.


    Things are different and better now... according to men.

    You see the world in more of an absolute line of thinking. I see the world the way it really is, not black or white, but gray. Your values would discourage many from speaking freely and safely, my values would empower people to speak freely and safely.


    You seems to believe in absolute accountability, regardless of the cost, the possible injustice, and loss of life. I believe in reasonable accountability, with reasonable protections based upon circumstances that may require them.


    We can both agree that corporation and individuals who sell products or services online should be bright to light (I think). I don't believe that part has been in dispute.

    I don't see the world as black or white, you are mistaken. Rather, I take notice of the ways society enforces these extremes through unbalance and ad-hoc social norms. I simply try to understand its dangers ensuing from it, recognize them, so I can avoid them as best as I am able to. I believe in accountability, because we must own responsibility for our actions -- it really is silly arguing that we shouldn't be.

    The flaw in your argument that I cannot overcome is by your understanding of risk and freedom, everyone, everywhere on the planet has freedom of speech... Which is certainly not true. But I imagine you would argue that it is true, because there is nothing physically stopping someone from speaking, just as there is nothing physically stopping you from breathing... And that there is only consequences.

    And the basic flaw in yours is believing in a dream-land, a ideal world, where we would be able to speak freely and never face consequences for it. As I explained to you earlier, this is not the world we live in, and people are and will always be held accountable for their actions and words. Some might be able to delay their accountability by escaping or hiding. Some other might even be able to avoid accountability altogether, but as a rule of thumb, that's how the world works. To fight from behind the safe trench of anonymity will not change the status, will not change the world, and sure it will not actively aid the cause of freedom of speech and human rights.

    I fear we must agree to disagree. I see no reason to continue this conversation. I feel it would be irrational to do so. Our values are far too different


    It was nice talking you, just the same

    I believe we should indeed agree to disagree :)


    At least, now we both know where the other stands ;)

    Edited 3 times, last by rafix73 ().

  • Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can understand your perspective better after reading that. I would certainly agree, you can't read everything all the time in a user content generated website. Your compromise sounds like a great idea. What do you think about non-profit organizations like a charity? Surely, it would still be important to release information in such a case, but that would also fall outside of the "buying and selling" definition of a business.

  • Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can understand your perspective better after reading that. I would certainly agree, you can't read everything all the time in a user content generated website. Your compromise sounds like a great idea. What do you think about non-profit organizations like a charity? Surely, it would still be important to release information in such a case, but that would also fall outside of the "buying and selling" definition of a business.

    I think charities should also be publically listed if the charities are intentionally receiving money. Because there have been fake charities, who claim they're collecting money for starving kids in Africa, but not a single child was fed... All they were doing is pocketing the money for themselves.


    The only exception I see would be those who are not intentionally looking to receive funds and only incorporate for their self-protection.

  • Most charities that collect money only send a 'percentage' of money collected to help the cause they collect it for, the rest they pocket themselves. Not all do, but most operate that way. So yes, they should be treated as a business as that is what most operate as really earning money out collecting funds for a charity (which they also make money from themselves).

  • Most charities that collect money only send a 'percentage' of money collected to help the cause they collect it for, the rest they pocket themselves. Not all do, but most operate that way. So yes, they should be treated as a business as that is what most operate as really earning money out collecting funds for a charity (which they also make money from themselves).

    This is also true, so I completely agree.

  • Most charities that collect money only send a 'percentage' of money collected to help the cause they collect it for, the rest they pocket themselves. Not all do, but most operate that way

    This is also true, so I completely agree.


    I think this is one fact we can all agree on.

  • Is this just .com domains? can you simply just use another type of domain to retain anonymity?


    In Australia, our equivalent to .com is .com.au. You will find a lot of Australian forums use a .com domain, this is because in Australia to register a .com.au you need to not only provide your name/address/phone for accountability but you need to provide an Australian Business Number (ABN) there is no such thing as anonymity for a .com.au because com is classified as a commercial domain. So unless you have an ABN you can't have a .com.au domain. For non profit organisations which you also need to prove, you have .org.au


    There is one instance where I have kept a domain anonymous to a degree by having the host provide their details and that was because I was buying a domain (.com) and a shared server for my son to encourage him to learn how to make a website etc being a minor, maybe only 11 (not sure). I didn't want my details on the domain to protect him from perverts etc


    So I think its a good idea to have some type of domain option for minors so that their identity is always protected. I know there's student domains, so perhaps they already do this.

    Edited once, last by Sherrie ().

  • I'm thinking it'll cover any domain that you can use WhoIs Protection with?


    Some you can't use it with anyway, such as .co.uk.


    I'm wondering how they would monitor this. Do they think all the personal hobby forums out there using .com and showing google adsense ads are going to provide their home details themselves. (remove the whois protection) I doubt it, some forum owners just won't do it and think most people would just ignore doing it unless forced too. So how will they monitor this, go around the web checking every site for ads?

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!