New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering?
There's simply no basis for your fear mongering.
There is no fear mongering. I am litigating against e360Insight and included Moniker as Defendant for providing anonymous whois service to spammers. Moniker has not identified or terminated the spammers, either e360 or on the original registrant of domain names that they claim do not belong to e360) Of course, I provided Moniker with copies of the spam (under oath) which Moniker admits that some of that spam are using BagainDepot's (sister company/co-defendant) anonymously registered domain names. I am not law enforcement. Just one of the people who tired of spammers using his servers as a using his inbox as a garbage can. Even is law enforcement was provided this information, there still need to be additional steps taken which will slow down the identification process. Do you think the FTC will start investigating a spammer that only sent 100 spams? Anonymous domain name registrations also prevent one from identifying how many are tied to a single spammer.
Bill Silverstein wrote:
There's simply no basis for your fear mongering.
There is no fear mongering. I am litigating against e360Insight and included Moniker as Defendant for providing anonymous whois service to spammers. Moniker has not identified or terminated the spammers, either e360 or on the original registrant of domain names that they claim do not belong to e360)
<snip> You are making judgements about the .ca policy based on your non-.ca experiences. The .ca policy does not permit anonymous registrations. It does permit individuals to opt-out of having their personal information from being published via the public whois. This does not mean it becomes inaccessible - there are channels through which this data can be requested from the registry. /ross
Ross Rader wrote:
You are making judgements about the .ca policy based on your non-.ca experiences. The .ca policy does not permit anonymous registrations. It does permit individuals to opt-out of having their personal information from being published via the public whois. Just to be clear... are corporate registrants not able to opt out?
This does not mean it becomes inaccessible - there are channels through which this data can be requested from the registry.
Are these channels limited to law enforcement? I can see legitimate instances where someone would need access in cases where law enforcement is unable or unwilling to get involved -- such as the pursuit of civil litigation or (in Canada's case) allegations of human rights violations. - Evan
/ross
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 5 May 2008, at 13:13, Ross Rader wrote:
Ross Rader wrote:
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Just to be clear... are corporate registrants not able to opt out?
No.
Oops. I meant "Yes". Corporate registrants are not able to opt out.
I missed the double negative :-)
So it's similar to the *.uk and .eu policies? Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
participants (4)
-
Bill Silverstein -
Evan Leibovitch -
Michele Neylon -
Ross Rader