Identifying domain owners spurs debate

For the London Free Press – October 1, 2007

Read this on Canoe

A debate has been raging within both CIRA and ICANN about just what information should be available using a WHOIS search to see who owns a domain name.

Some cite privacy concerns and argue that as little information as possible should be available. Others fear the lack of accountability that may occur should the contents of a WHOIS search be curtailed.

CIRA is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority — responsible for operating Canada’s dot-ca Internet country code Top Level Domain. ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — responsible for operating generic Top Level Domains such as dot-com.

WHOIS is an online directory service that allows anyone to see who owns Internet Domain Names. For example, a WHOIS search on “harrisonpensa.com” will reveal the name and contact information of its owner and the administrative contact who has authority to deal with the domain name.

Both CIRA and ICANN have been developing policies to address privacy concerns.

CIRA has been working to develop a WHOIS privacy policy for several years. Public consultations in 2004 and 2006 led to new policies that limit the amount of information available on a WHOIS search. CIRA is planning to implement the new WHOIS privacy policy in March of 2008.

Under the new policy, if a registrant’s data is disclosed to a third party without their knowledge, the registrant will be informed between 30 and 60 days after the disclosure. This seems to be geared toward concerns expressed by law enforcement regarding the impact notice may have on ongoing investigations.

The new policy attempts to deal with concerns regarding the ability of would-be purchasers of domains to contact domain owners. CIRA will establish an administrative process for passing correspondence from interested parties to registrants.

The new policy will amend CIRA’s Dispute Resolution Policy rules. There is concern that changes to the WHOIS policy will make it more difficult to prove a domain was registered in bad faith. The changes are intended to make it easier for a complainant to provide evidence to prove their case.

ICANN has struggled to reach a consensus, with neither camp willing to move from their position. The current proposal put forth by ICANN replaces some personal information with a pointer to a proxy known as the OPOC, the Operational Point of Contact. The OPOC would act as a mediator between the registrant and the party wishing to contact them. The OPOC would only be placed in front of individual registrants. This element of the proposal addresses one major issue overlooked by CIRA in that privacy concerns apply only to individuals, not to corporations.

While such systems might help address concerns regarding individual privacy, it will also create an additional layer of bureaucracy to be navigated by law enforcement and others who rely on WHOIS to deal with abuse of the internet.

Currently WHOIS can provide an easy way for lawyers to contact parties whose websites may be violating the rights of others, such as improperly using copyrighted materials, defamation, or trade-mark infringement.

Complicating this process will certainly increase the time and costs associated with such efforts.

Vote for the CIRA Board

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority – the body that governs .ca domain names – is currently holding elections for its board of directors. Any CIRA member – ie anyone with a .ca domain name – can vote.

I encourage members to vote for Clyde Beattie, the current CIRA chair, and a London resident. I have had some good discussions with Clyde over the years about CIRA issues. He approaches them in a well thought out, balanced, and forward looking manner.

Voting ends Thursday Sept 21 at 8:00 PM eastern time.

Read Clyde’s profile

Vote

Whois privacy

Circle ID has a post that refers to a Wall Street Journal article on Whois privacy. ICAAN and CIRA are now trying to figure out how to deal with this issue.

Now, one can do a whois inquiry and find out the name and contact information for the owner of any domain name. That has raised privacy concerns. Some feel that information should not be made public.

Even though I support privacy principles in general, and advise clients on privacy issues, I disagree with a total ban on the ability to find that information.

First, privacy concepts apply to individuals, not corporations or other other non-human entities. So at the most any publication ban should be only for individuals that own domains.

Second, I have a real problem if I as a lawyer can’t look up the owners of domain names. It is often necessary to know who a site owner is to deal with situations where a site has, for example, violated trade-mark or copyright or has defamed a client. Or a client may simply want to contact a domain owner to see if they are interested in selling a site.

The Wall Street Journal article mentions how the Red Cross used whois information to shut down sites that were fraudulently trying to collect money for Katrina victims.

Read the CircleID post

CIRA to ICANN – clean up your governance

In preparation for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Wellington, New Zealand, CIRA sent an open letter to ICANN. CIRA is concerned about the way ICANN carries on business, citing issues in accountability, transparency of decision making, and fair process.

Until CIRA is satisfied, it is suspending the payment of money to ICANN, and declining certain ICANN activities.

So add CIRA to the list of those unhappy with ICANN governance and the Verisign decision. That list includes many countries outside of North America, the US Department of Justice, and a group of 23 ICANN registrars which made a “Joint Request for Reconsideration and Emergency Relief” regarding the ICANN settlement with VeriSign.

Read the CIRA letter

Read the registrar request

Resolution settles Internet tiff

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – May 28, 2005

Read this on Canoe

London’s DRN Commerce Inc. recently won a domain name dispute.

DRN provides collection processing and debt recovery services to various financial institutions, insurance companies and their service providers.

In February, DRN filed a complaint under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) dispute resolution policy regarding “drn.ca.” DRN had discovered a competitor had registered the domain name drn.ca and used it to point to its own website.

The arbitration panel recently released its decision ordering the transfer of the domain name, drn.ca, to the complainant, DRN. The full text of this decision can be found as decision No. 30 on the CIRA website, www.cira.ca, in the decisions under the dispute resolution policy link.

Continue reading

Beating domain squatters

DAVID CANTON – For the London Free Press – January 29, 2005

Read this on Canoe

The introduction of the Internet into the everyday lifestyles of consumers has fundamentally changed the way we do business.

A domain name is an important part of a businesses identity. Reaching customers by a website can be crucial to a company’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Cybersquatters can interfere with this ability — but fortunately there is recourse.

Continue reading

CIRA Whois policy consultation

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority has proposed a new WHOIS policy. Information on owners of domain names is now readily available using a whois search. CIRA’s proposal would limit the amount of information publicly available on individual registrants. Privacy concerns are one of the drivers.

CIRA is inviting comments on the proposed policy any time prior to January 15.

While I have not yet read the proposed policy in detail, one concern is the availablity of that information for legitimate purposes – such as locating an owner of an unused domain name for possible purchase, or finding the owner of sites that may violate the rights of others.

See the CIRA website for details.