<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>CircleID: Whois</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Latest Whois related postings on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-09-06T10:31:00-08:00</dc:date>
		
		
		<item>
			<title>ICANN Says It Is Not an Internet Enforcement Agency</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ICANN says domain name issues are not always a matter of contractual compliance... "There remain occasional misconceptions about ICANN's authority. Some appear to believe ICANN is an Internet enforcement agency, with broad power to shut down websites, restrict website content, and penalize Internet users for unethical behavior. This is not the case," says a section from ICANN's July magazine. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_not_an_internet_enforcement_agency/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-07-24T10:35:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>law</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>CIRA Creates Backdoor WHOIS Exceptions for Police and IP Owners</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/86103_cira_backdoor_whois_police/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/86103_cira_backdoor_whois_police/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year, I wrote <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2897/135/">glowingly</a> about the new CIRA whois policy, which took effect today and which I described as striking the right balance between access and privacy. The policy was to have provided new privacy protection to individual registrants -- hundreds of thousands of Canadians -- by removing the public disclosure of their personal contact information... Apparently I spoke too soon. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/86103_cira_backdoor_whois_police/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-06-10T14:45:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>privacy</category><category>top_level_domains</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Canadian Domain Whois Policy Changes Face Opposition from Law Enforcement</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadian_domain_whois_law_enforcement/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadian_domain_whois_law_enforcement/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sweeping changes to Canada's country code top-level domain, .ca, will put the country on the vanguard of Internet privacy. But while law enforcement isn't happy about potentially losing an important investigative tool, the half-million Canadians whose personal information is currently publicly available on the Internet shouldn't rest easy that they are safe from wired snoops. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadian_domain_whois_law_enforcement/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-27T10:05:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>privacy</category><category>top_level_domains</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>ICANN Responds to &quot;Worst Spam Offenders&quot; and the Recent Knujon Report</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_spam_offenders_knujon_report/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_spam_offenders_knujon_report/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ICANN has made an official announcement following <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/spam_sites_domain_name_registrars/">earlier reports</a> which suggested domain names registered by most spam sites where linked to a handful of domain registrars. From the ICANN Annoucement: "ICANN has sent enforcement notices and notices of concern to certain registrars, including those reported this week as being the registrars for the majority of websites advertised in spam emails... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_spam_offenders_knujon_report/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-26T07:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>domain_names</category><category>spam</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/85210_cira_whois_policy_privacy_access/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/85210_cira_whois_policy_privacy_access/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My weekly technology law column focuses this week on the new <a href="http://www.cira.ca/en/Whois/whois_intro.html">CIRA whois policy</a> that is scheduled to take effect on June 10, 2008. The whois issue has attracted little public attention, yet it has been the subject of heated debate within the domain name community for many years. It revolves around the whois database, a publicly accessible, searchable list of domain name registrant information (as in "who is" the registrant of a particular domain name). <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/85210_cira_whois_policy_privacy_access/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-02T09:54:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>privacy</category><category>spam</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Google Re&#45;Introduces WHOIS Search</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_domain_whois_search/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_domain_whois_search/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Google, in partnership with DomainTools, is now offering a Whois search capability which allows users to find registration and expiration dates of domain names when followed by the word 'whois' in Google's search box. A similar short-lived service was offered by Google a few years ago. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_domain_whois_search/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-21T08:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Canada&apos;s New Policy Will Privatize Whois Data for .ca Domains</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadas_privatize_whois_data/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadas_privatize_whois_data/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has posted its Change of Privacy Status... "As of June 10, 2008 the dot-ca (.ca) WHOIS will no longer release information about individual Registrants and their Adminstrative and Technical contacts, providing more thorough privacy protection for many of our Registrants." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/canadas_privatize_whois_data/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-21T07:39:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>privacy</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>An Open Letter to Yahoo!&apos;s Postmaster</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/84374_open_letter_yahoo_postmaster/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/84374_open_letter_yahoo_postmaster/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In June 2004, Yahoo! and a number of other companies got together to announce the Anti-Spam Technical Alliance or ASTA. While it appears to have been largely silent since then, ASTA did at least publish an initial set of best practices the widespread adoption of which could possibly have had some impact on spam... The majority of these are clearly aimed at ISPs and end users, but some are either generally or specifically relevant to email providers such as Yahoo!, Google or Microsoft... The problem: Since February this year, we have been receiving a significant quantity of spam emails from Yahoo!'s servers. In addition to their transport via the Yahoo! network, all originate from email addresses in yahoo.com, yahoo.co.uk and one or two other Yahoo! domains. Every such message bears a Yahoo! DomainKeys signature... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/84374_open_letter_yahoo_postmaster/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-04-03T07:30:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>security</category><category>spam</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>The Anti&#45;Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/83410_anti_phishing_consumer_protection_act/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/83410_anti_phishing_consumer_protection_act/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week Sen. Snowe filed bill S.2661, the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008, or APCPA. While its goals are laudable, I have my doubts about some of the details. The first substantive section of the bill, Section 3, makes various phishy activities more illegal than they are now in its first two subsections. It makes it specifically illegal to solicit identifying information from a computer under false pretenses, and to use a domain name that is deceptively similar to someone else's brand or name on the web in e-mail or IM to mislead people... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/83410_anti_phishing_consumer_protection_act/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-03-04T10:06:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>privacy</category><category>security</category><category>spam</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>ICA Posts Position Paper and Analysis of Snowe &quot;Anti&#45;Phishing&quot; Legislation</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/831125_ica_position_paper_anti_phishing_legislation/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/831125_ica_position_paper_anti_phishing_legislation/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Internet Commerce Association (<a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/">ICA</a>) has posted a position paper and analysis of S. 2661, introduced on 2/25/08 in the US Senate. While we are firmly opposed to phishing and other criminal activities that may utilize domain names we are very concerned about the provisions of the proposal that appear to provide trademark owners with a means to avoid both UDRP and ACPA actions and alternatively bring private claims against domain names with a lower burden of proof and the potential for far higher monetary damages, without even requiring an allegation that the DN was in any way being utilized in a phishing scheme... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/831125_ica_position_paper_anti_phishing_legislation/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-03-01T13:14:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>domain_registries</category><category>law</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>privacy</category><category>security</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Upcoming Domain Pulse 2008 Within Central Europe</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82810_domain_pulse_2008_europe/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82810_domain_pulse_2008_europe/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Domain Pulse, the yearly get-together of the German-speaking registries of nic.at (Austria), Denic (Germany) and SWITCH (Switzerland) is happening on February 21 and 22 in Vienna. The conference alternates between the countries -- last year it was Switzerland, this year Austria and next year Germany... Domain Pulse covers everything in the domain name arena from management of the DNS, what's happening in each of the ccTLDs, after market and domaining, security threats to the DNS and internet as well as wider issues affecting the internet's development such as internet governance. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82810_domain_pulse_2008_europe/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-08T10:05:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>internet_governance</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>security</category><category>top_level_domains</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>North Dakota Judge Gets it Wrong</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/811611_david_ritz_court_spam/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/811611_david_ritz_court_spam/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ever been prosecuted for tracking spam? Running a traceroute? Doing a zone transfer? Asking a public internet server for public information that it is configured to provide upon demand? No? Well, David Ritz has. And amazingly, he lost the case. Here are just a few of the gems that the court has the audacity to call "<a href="http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351">conclusions of law</a>." Read them while you go donate to David's <a href="http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/help-fight-spammer-slapp-suit-donate-to.html">legal defense fund</a>... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/811611_david_ritz_court_spam/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-16T12:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>spam</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Oversee.net Receives $150 Million Investment</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/811510_oversee_receives_150_million_investment/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/811510_oversee_receives_150_million_investment/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oversee.net announced today that it has executed a definitive agreement with Oak Hill Capital Partners, a private equity firm, for an investment of $150 million in Oversee.net's holding company. Specific terms of the transaction were not disclosed. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/811510_oversee_receives_150_million_investment/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-15T10:09:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>top_level_domains</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Domain Front Running by Registrars Continues to Draw Attention</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/81097_domain_front_running_registrars/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/81097_domain_front_running_registrars/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In response to accusations lodged yesterday in <a href="http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=85864">a post</a> on the DomainState forum, NSI has issued a <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/81082_network_solutions_front_running/">statement</a> which essentially admits that it engages in a form of domain front running. No one has challenged domain Front Running by registrars in the courts, likely because the practice is new and since the loss of a single domain would not typically generate a level of damages to support litigation. But litigation over this arguably fraudulent domain practice by registrars is both viable and likely inevitable... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/81097_domain_front_running_registrars/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-09T07:35:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>policy_regulation</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title>Network Solutions Responds to Front Running Accusations</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/81082_network_solutions_front_running/</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/81082_network_solutions_front_running/</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Following <a href="http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=85864">a post</a> on the DomainState forum today, a number news and blogs have criticized Network Solutions for <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/7112810_nominet_on_front_running/">front running</a> domain names that customers try to register. (See for instance <a href="http://www.domainnamenews.com/featured/domain-registrar-network-solutions-front-running-on-whois-searches/1359">today's report</a> on DomainNameNews). Jonathon Nevett, Vice President of Policy at Network Solutions, has offered the following in response to the news break... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/81082_network_solutions_front_running/">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-01-08T14:30:00-08:00</dc:date>
			<category>internet</category><category>cybersquatting</category><category>dns</category><category>domain_names</category><category>security</category><category>whois</category>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>