Can I opt out of Whois?

[will]

I've registered a few .co.uk domains but haven't started selling any yet until I learn more about the business. Because I'm not actually trading yet, I selected the non-trading option that prevents my address details from being displayed on the whois. But will it be necessary for me to switch back to the trading option to show my address details on the whois when I start advertising the domains for sale?

Nominet's conditions indicate a non-trading individual to be one that does not intend to use the domain name in the course of a business. So it may be that I can still opt out because I'm not intending to use the name for a business but to sell it to someone who will. But what if I park it on a site like Sedo, for example? Would this constitute using it for a business?

Any advice or opinions on this? Thanks in advance.

Will.

 

[denchomsky]

If you register your names with 123-reg they give you the option to opt out of whois results in the domain management section.
So if you were to transfer your names over to them then you could opt out.
I would first check that your registra did not give you tis option first as when you transfer domains to another registra you have to pay for a 1 year extension.
Hope this helps

 

[eetc]

If your registrar doesn't give you the option you can change this yourself at the Nominet Registrants On-Line page, assuming you have received your confirmation of registration with the security code...

Chris

 

[texidriver]

if you transfer domains to another registra you have to pay for a 1 year extension.

I have transferred .co.uk domains in to 123-REG at no cost and no extension.

 

[retired_member6]

I've registered a couple of domains today and 123-reg no longer has the tick box for privacy, so I must have gone over a quota. It's a liberty, there's no privacy in this world anymore, oh well, it might be time to get a po box number that I never look at.

 

[melitaweb]

What I find truly ironic about the whole opt-out farce is the lack of email address in the whois. I have had DRS taken out against me by people who just wanted to contact me and not by snailmail. If I am being forced to show my address at least let me show my email address (or even have an opt-out for that). That would prevent an enormous amout of unnecessary DRS and snailmail. I won't hold my breath though - this is probably not petty enough to warrant a committee meeting.

 

[Jay Daley]

What I find truly ironic about the whole opt-out farce is the lack of email address in the whois. I have had DRS taken out against me by people who just wanted to contact me and not by snailmail. If I am being forced to show my address at least let me show my email address (or even have an opt-out for that). That would prevent an enormous amout of unnecessary DRS and snailmail. I won't hold my breath though - this is probably not petty enough to warrant a committee meeting.

There have been committee meetings about this and the overwhelming view was that publishing email addresses would only lead to a large increase in spam.

 

[domaingenius]

There have been committee meetings about this and the overwhelming view was that publishing email addresses would only lead to a large increase in spam.

But why dont you let the registrant make the choice himself and not have to make it for him ,or her?

DG

 

[rob]

People often use the registrant or trading as sections to put a web address or email address as a point of contact.

 

[safesys]

There have been committee meetings about this and the overwhelming view was that publishing email addresses would only lead to a large increase in spam.

That's a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[melitaweb]

Yes it seems we are incapable of choosing an email address that we can monitor. Good thing we don't have the option unlike every other TLD in existence. This is why the DRS is rapidly getting used by people who just want to make an offer on a domain or enquire about it's availability. Total waste of resources.
reg-opt-out:y ... why is it impossible for this to include an email? Maybe we should put our email address in address2 field. Would that be acceptable?

 

[Michael Penman]

Why not simply keep the addresses mentioned in the IETF RFCs (abuse@ postmaster@) functioning?