Probably EVERY customer out there would be interested if you present it in a logical way. the Whois data is used by spammers to get email addresses AND Snail Mail Addresses.
If you explained that it would ALL of the spam that originates from the whois records, PLUS all the junk snail mail they get from the same, they would probably pay a few dollars extra for it. It's worth it, to be kept private. I'd be interested in seeing this come to OpenSRS, after all, the customer CAN decline it, at least we would HAVE it to offer! Just my 2 cents, Richard. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 5:57 PM Subject: Re: protecting ourselves from scammers > ...and more importantly, in the final stages of figuring out how those of > our resellers that want to offer a service of this nature can (and stay on > the right side of the various policies). > > I'd be interested in hearing more about whether or not you all have any > ideas as to how much your customers are willing to pay for enhanced privacy > (or if indeed they are at all...) > > -rwr > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "elliot noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Chvostek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:48 PM > Subject: Re: protecting ourselves from scammers > > > > .....it is also worth noting that this has been done by folks other than > > GoDaddy for some time. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Paul Chvostek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:26 PM > > Subject: Re: protecting ourselves from scammers > > > > > > > Go Daddy has started offering Whois Records of this nature and they keep > > > the 'true' whois information internally. Their reational is that the > > > information needs to be available should a legal entity subpeona the > > > records but users should haver the right to unlisted domain names. They > > > claim to have done the legal research and have ICANN approval. > > > > > > I am not an attorney but their claim makes sense to me. I am currently > > > implementing a system similar. Where the whois info will read > customer777 > > > at TLD Systems, mailing address Box 777 at TLD Systems with the email > > > address being [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that email address being > > > forwarded to a mailbox that the domain owner has access to. > > > > > > In this way the Whois information is technically acccurate since the > > > information can be used to contact the domain owner. And the owner can > > > respond to snail mail and email. But their identity is protected. > > > > > > This works fine for com / net / org. I have not yet researched how well > > > if works with us / info / biz nor has it been tested through the legal > > > system. But we have all of the contact information locally should the > > > need arise. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Paul Chvostek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Over the last few days, I've noticed a number of domains with admin > > > > contact records listing the name of the admin contact but a physical > > > > address that is "c/o" the ISP's address. > > > > > > > > Presumably this practise is being recommended by some ISPs trying to > > > > thwart the confusion generated by DROC and the like, but does anyone > > > > have an opinion as to the legality of it? Especially for .CA domains? > > > > > > > > Does "care-of" on a contact record imply any sort of legal > relationship > > > > between the registrant and the listed company? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
