| 3:54 pm on Jun 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Wow -- thanks for the post!
It will be interesting to see how this plays out (or not).
| 5:48 pm on Jun 10, 2008 (gmt 0)|
More here: [webmasterworld.com...]
Domains registered by companies are not covered by the new whois rules, and their contact details remain available. Only private individuals have their privacy protected by default.
I've just logged into the CIRA registrants area, that's much improved too - they've added what could be considered basic information (such as registrant details and a list of .ca domains under that registrant name), and there is the option to switch on or off the whois privacy.
| 1:37 am on Jun 11, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There is an interesting article today by Michael Geist which indicates a last-minute change in the privacy provisions:
CIRA Creates Backdoor WHOIS Exceptions for Police and IP Owners [michaelgeist.ca]
|Faced with the prospect of a privacy balance, special interests representing law enforcement and trademark holders quietly pressured CIRA to create a backdoor that will enable these two groups (and these two groups alone) to have special access to registrant information. In the case of law enforcement, police can bring cases to CIRA involving immediate risk to children or the Internet (ie. denial-of-service attacks) and CIRA will hand over registrant information without court oversight. In the case of trademark holders (as well as copyright and patent owners), claims that a domain name infringes their rights will be enough to allow CIRA to again disclose registrant information. |
This represents a stunning about-face after years of public consultation on the whois policy. While the law enforcement exception appears to be narrowly tailored, the exception for trademark, copyright, and patent interests undermines a crucial part of the whois policy, namely compliance with Canadian privacy law (the policy now arguably violates the law) and the appropriate balance between privacy and access.
It's disappointing that the carefully-planned policy agreed on by voting CIRA members has been modified without consultation, and that the policy - which was implemented in large part in order to comply with Canadian privacy legislation - now appears to fail to respect those laws.
| 3:37 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
So CIRA agrees to cooperate with Law Enforcement to help protect children from immediate risk, I have no issue with that. Furthermore, IP owners now have special access to otherwise private information? So to put it another way, CIRA will respect our privacy so long as it does not "harm the children" or "harm the money".
| 12:13 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
any movements for the .com-s? I hope they go towards that path soon
| 2:15 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if #*$! whois history will still display the old records in the archive?