Re: GoDaddy deleting most ancillary registration contact information

[Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

So, 2 out of 2400. “Two, if not all”. LOL! 

-mel via cell

> On Jul 19, 2025, at 4:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> None of my personal domains have any sort of privacy turned on, never have
> (it didn't exist when the oldest ones were registered via SRI), and never
> will.
> Personally, it feels skanky to do it, but I guess that's just one opinion.
>
>
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 7:39 PM Gary Sparkes via NANOG <
> > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> >
> > Cloudflare and Namecheap default to privacy, and don't charge for it.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mel Beckman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 7:11 PM
> > To: nanog () lists nanog org
> > Cc: bzs () theworld com; nanog () lists nanog org; Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>
> > Subject: Re: GoDaddy deleting most ancillary registration contact
> > information
> >
> > > On Jul 19, 2025, at 2:03 PM, David Conrad via NANOG <
> > nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > I believe it is the result of most if not all Registrars defaulting to
> > “privacy” for registrations since GDPR was enacted.
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Most if not all? I don’t know of any registrars that default to “privacy”
> > for registrations. In fact, the all sell it as an add-on option that you
> > have to explicitly accept and agree to pay for.
> >
> > It seems like registrars are doing this to just reduce the amount of data
> > they’re responsible to maintain, while not reducing costs one iota.
> >
> > I’ll bet if the FTC, or whoever, mandated that this reduced level of
> > service required a refund to existing registrants, we’d find exactly how
> > much non-European Registrars really respect the GPDR!
> >
> > -mel via cell
> >
> > > Barry,
> > >
> > > > On Jul 19, 2025, at 11:50 AM, bzs () theworld com wrote:
> > > > > On July 18, 2025 at 19:39 nanog () lists nanog org (David Conrad via
> > NANOG) wrote:
> > > > > My somewhat cynical answer: if you relied on domain (and likely IP
> > address/ASN in the future) registration data, it might be worthwhile
> > figuring out alternatives to that reliance.  Les cynically: pragmatically,
> > given the vast majority of contact information these days points to privacy
> > providers or is redacted, I’m unclear there will be significant impact —
> > the data is already pretty useless.
> > > > Even if 90% were useless it would still be of use, possibly
> > > > critically, in the other 10% of cases and I don't think it's anywhere
> > > > near 90%.
> > >
> > > I’ve not done an exhaustive survey myself, but the “majority of contact
> > information” comment was taken from my interactions with law enforcement
> > and I believe it is the result of most if not all Registrars defaulting to
> > “privacy” for registrations since GDPR was enacted.  However, since the law
> > enforcement folks I deal with are mostly interested in current activities,
> > e.g., phish/botnet/etc., it’s likely they focus on recently registered
> > domains so there may be a selection bias. As such, I won’t argue the point.
> > > > Particularly if one can consider legitimate "privacy providers"
> > > > useful as they can be contacted, subpoenaed, etc. which you seem to
> > > > count as being in the "useless" category.
> > >
> > > As mentioned, ICANN still requires registrars to collect valid contact
> > information, however that information is not provided to the public as it
> > once was.  It is, of course, still subject to subpoena/court order
> > (depending on jurisdiction, of course) and it’s theoretically possible, if
> > you can make your case to the registrar, that they’ll provide registration
> > information to you if you can demonstrate “legitimate interest” (at the
> > registrar’s discretion and risk, of course).
> > > > Whatever happened to "if your registration data is fraudulent,
> > > > obsolete, or incorrect you stand to have your registration canceled"?
> > >
> > > AFAIK, it remains a contractual requirement despite ICANN undertaking a
> > law suit in Germany to enforce it for admin-c and tech-c and losing (if
> > interested, see
> > https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/the-fine-print/recent-lawsuit-icann-against-german-domain-registrar-highlights
> > ).
> > > However, this gets into an “interesting” (or “infuriating”, depending on
> > your POV) discussion about what contact information “accuracy” means. ICANN
> > Accredited Registrars’ view (which I provide without comment) is at
> > https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/RrSG-Approach-to-Registration-Data-Accuracy-March-2024.pdf
> > .
> > > > This seems like an admission that this policy was not enforced.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not sure how you got there. Registrars (or their lawyers) will (have,
> > and do) argue that they abide by the policy (see the Registrar’s position
> > above). ICANN Contractual Compliance argues that they enforce the policy
> > (see pretty much any statement by the head of ICANN CC). I have my
> > opinions, but they’re not particularly relevant. Since GDPR, the flagging
> > of inaccurate registration has unsurprisingly tanked, so it’s difficult for
> > the public to determine if registration information is accurate or
> > inaccurate (for whatever value of the variable “accurate" you want to use).
> > Perhaps somewhat relevant, see sections 5.2 and 6.4 of
> > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/inferential-analysis-maliciously-registered-domains-08nov24-en.pdf,
> > but that probably doesn’t help that much.
> > > Regards,
> > > -drc
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NANOG mailing list
> > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VT
> > > C33LVNIQ6ZCHVXL3YLRFCTTDJ6TEHN/
> > > <signature.asc>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VFIPBHSKZYDFMKRT5RRMPCGMIESCXUZ6/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NANOG mailing list
> >
> > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/EX7HBCA5RDMPXEZ3R4RSOWU33RS242AD/
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/H2JC46XX6B4TOLBK5LDBFKK63LCJMRCL/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/3JK2HBDKTKXD5MVUH4S7LRKHVS64IS7Q/