Posted on dnf, but I also feel a valid subject here in domainstate.com, as the whole whois legitmacy issue is an ongoing topic of discussion. What do you all think?

In seeing dvdrips post in Legal Issues on dnf, it brings to mind those who would try to avoid legal liabilities or other concurrent publicity or responsibility resulting from the operation of gambling or pornography related websites.

Perhaps our esteemed attorney at large JBH can comment, but do members really think that the "domains in trust" ploy really works in "sheilding" them from responsiblity or avoiding the appearance of being the owners/operators of porn or gambling sites?

Who are you fooling after all? If you aren't the "real" owner or registrant then I suggest that the name be placed in the "true" registrants name. Otherwise, any legal (civil or criminal) liabilities would land straight at the proverbial door of the "registrant" who's only holding the name within the "in trust" department.
Pathetic ploy or misguided and naive, the results are the same. No one's, least of all the courts (legal or of public opinion) is going to buy the "in trust" argument IMO.

People may not "leap" to conclusions, but its something to think about ....

Cheers

It just makes the real registrant look devious (not great for udrp/acpa etc) and opens the proxy up to legal action and/or repuation problems.

As you say, if you run a legit operation be legit with the whois.

i concur with the only exception being domains that are open to challenge (not outright tm infringement but ones that may be challenged without real merit or close) could be kept in a seperate business entity for the purpose of not ending up with all holdings being belemished by a udrp history which can happen even if you win

just my thoughts

the domains in trust is a weak incriminating move that only spotlights the issue again in my opinion only

Legally I don't think its really going to help much, agree that its likely to bee seen negatively during a dispute and likely to give the co. even more reason to sue rather than resolve things amicably.

Well, I agree with all of you as well. Unfortunately, what started as a discussion on the advisability of this strategy, turned into an ugly affair full of profane statements by some of those involved.

Interesting reading nonetheless. Draw your own conclusions about the character of those who would use such vile and profane langauge, in an unprovoked attack upon others.

It does make one wonder! I draw you attention to the following thread on dnforum (with apologies to the moderators here if cross linking is not allowed):

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.ph...0&pagenumber=1

Once again, we must appreciate the moderation that Sys et al, bring to these forums! What a treat dnforum.com use to be with the old mods, and to what depths has it sunk now that "moderation" is but an empty phrase over there.

Cheers

Originally posted by snoopy
Legally I don't think its really going to help much, agree that its likely to bee seen negatively during a dispute and likely to give the co. even more reason to sue rather than resolve things amicably.

I have read the thread posted at DNForum.com. It is indeed lengthy and squabblish, but to be more to the point I agree entirely with Snoopy's statement. I don't think it's going to make a difference if any legal pursuance was brought forth--the registrant would still be the focus of ownership.

,

I agree with your entirely. Frankly, we had debated this issue with respect to services like Domain by Proxy, which of course was always subject to disclosure by subpoena, etc. The true "shielding" effect by proxy ownership was always dubious.

It makes one wonder, however, why some who engage in this strategy, would be so aggrieved and hysterical publically. If you have the stomach to operate a porn site, at least:

1. Register in our own name or your company's.

OR in the case as acting on behalf of a "client".

2. Register as an agent of a "client" perhaps as the technical contact, while retaining the clients name as "registrant".

Otherwise, you are 'legally" speaking, fooling no one but yourself.

Why some would be so irrational and profane on this issue is beyond me. But then again, many exhibit self destructive traits at times.

I've been thinking a bit more about it (I haven’t' really read a whole lot about the legalities of domains by proxy). But surely if a company is listed as "registrant" on a domain record then legally they are the owners, when as C & D gets sent it will be sent to the "registrant" and its hard to imagine someone bringing any kind of court action without at least suing the person listed on the whois record.

Maybe if the proxy is quick enough they can change details to the real owner in time, but then again some companies don't even send C&D's they just sue. I notice domains by proxy has a term in their contract

"You agree to release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless DBP, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, agents, directors, officers and employees and Your Registrar, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or related in any way to this Agreement, the services provided hereunder by DBP, the DBP website, Your account with DBP, Your use of Your domain name, and/or disputes arising in connection with the Dispute Resolution Policy"

but that won't save them from being sued, it will just help them recover costs after the fact, since the agreement obviously won't be with the party suing.

I would love to know if from a legal point of view the "registrant" is the same thing as "owner". In addition for a registrar to change ownership title (or registrant title depending on your point of view ) under a court order I would think the order would have to be against the "registrant" rather than an unlisted party for it to be taken seriously by the registrar?

Then I think things could get messy if the "true owner" decides to deny any involvement if there is a trial. I tend to think its completely untested as to how thing will work though I'm sure there will be lots of " InsertBigCorporationHere vs Domains By Proxy" in the near future.

Frankly, I didn't expect the "sailor" cusswords from a DNF thread and I am quite surprised that they were not deleted.

But I think the exchange is a by-product of a personal vendetta: nobody likes being put on the spot for no apparent reason and then there's the old saying that all is fair in love and war

I've noticed that some registrars have 5 classes of contacts: owner, registrant, admin, technical, billing contacts. Clearly, in the absence of a certification for of the beneficial owner, absolving the "agent" or "proxy" of responsibility or concurrent liability, the whois record would speak on a face value basis.

One wonders the commercial rationale behind Domains by Proxy. It most legitimate cases, the owners wouldn't want their identity shielded. Save for issues of trademark infringement, questionable content, or "shame", a proxy situation wouldn't seem to be much in demand.

Further, if defraying liability was the issue in question, one could hold in the asset corporately, with the contact being an employee or agent of the corporate structure.

Simple disclaimers such as c/o or "in trust" wouldn't have any legal weight, and certainly wouldn't dissuage anyone from litigation vs. the named registrant. After all, one would only ask the registrant to identify the "client" or beneficial owner.

I doubt that "protection of ones sources" would hold much weight in that case. Rather, the jig would be up so to speak.

As for Domains by Proxy, GoDaddy is big enough to attract the interest and scrutiny of the authorities and/or legal profession. Therefore, I'd wager that they'd fold their hand pretty quickly and agree to a disclosure of the beneficial owner post haste.

I wonder how hard DBP would try to defend any threats towards the domain. I would imagine they'd just hand it over (why incurr costs when they are not contractually bound to do so).

But of course, the rationale behind the 'domains by proxy' is the legitimate shielding of the contact information, citing spamming or privacy reasons.

An interesting thing with GoDaddy is that in their agreement mention that they can essentially hijack the DNS, thus making a domain inaccessible, if it were registered by them; regardless of what DNS is being used, if the owner is accused of spamming.

Originally posted by safesys
I wonder how hard DBP would try to defend any threats towards the domain. I would imagine they'd just hand it over (why incurr costs when they are not contractually bound to do so).

I've no doubt they would hand over the information to a subpoena.

Originally posted by timechange.com
Frankly, I didn't expect the "sailor" cusswords from a DNF thread and I am quite surprised that they were not deleted.

But I think the exchange is a by-product of a personal vendetta: nobody likes being put on the spot for no apparent reason and then there's the old saying that all is fair in love and war

Heard of the Geneva Convention? All is not fair in love and war in my opinion. Civility distiquishes one from a barbarian. Wouldn't you agree?

Further, if one is willing to engage in certain acts (operating a porn site for example), then why would one be adverse to that fact being illuminated after they attack others. You can't have things both ways. There is an internal conflict between being a self proclaimed paragon of virtue and behaving in that manner.

Not proud of what you're doing? Simple solution! Don't do it!

Other than that, you will note that no one mentioned the cussing party by name. Many, many people use that ploy in different ways. Had one wanted to "out" anyone, one would have done so explicitly with whois data and a hyperlink to a site in question from the beginning.

That said, this was intended as a discussion as to the advisability of using such a ploy in terms of legality and appearance.

Cheers

Thats assuming it goes that far. For simple infringement they'd just hand it over and 99% of complainants would be happy. Why would DBP want to prepare any kind of defense as that cost would negate the reg fees by a huge margin.