• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

CIRA’s WHOIS Policy Strikes a Balance

November 2, 2008 by Jonathan Giraldi (IPilogue Editor)

Update July 7, 2009: Jonathan Giraldi’s post “CIRA’s WHOIS Policy Strikes a Balance” won the Gowlings LLP Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize Fall 2008 in Professor D’Agostino’s IP class

In a hotly-debated move, Canada’s internet domain registry authority has allowed select groups to request the personal information of domain registrants, after promising to remove all public access.  However, the change is not as dire as many would have you believe.

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), responsible for registering dot-ca domain names, had promised to eliminate access to their WHOIS database to comply with national privacy legislation.  Previously, that database provided public access to the full contact information of dot-ca domain name holders.  But when the new CIRA policy was introduced on June 10, 2008, it became apparent that select groups still had potential access to this personal information.

One of those groups is law enforcement agencies.  The potential access to personal information by law enforcement under certain conditions (i.e., to enforce a child exploitation offence under the Criminal Code [1] ) has not been contentious.  Rather, it is potential access by another group, intellectual property (IP) owners, that has sparked debate.

Although the new policy has been depicted as simple backdoor access to personal information for IP owners, this is overly simplistic.  In reality, current requirements ensure that only legitimate requests will be considered.  For example, to file a request an individual must certify that they reasonably believe in good faith that a registrant’s domain name or its content infringes their Canadian registered trademark (or copyright or issued patent), or infringes their registered business name [2].   Because the policy requires the filing of supporting documentation (through a notarized copy of a registration of copyright, patent, etc.) unsubstantiated requests will not be considered.

While the release of personal information is disconcerting, CIRA is right to allow limited access.  The internet is a unique environment in that IP infringers cannot be readily identified and summoned to court to account for their actions.  An absolute ban on access to personal information would create an extra hurdle for IP owners seeking to protect their rights on the internet.  Users treading too close to a protected right should not be surprised when they are required to defend their actions, nor should they be able to use the internet to prolong their abuse of an IP right.

Furthermore, CIRA provides an online message delivery form to communicate with registrants whose personal information has been concealed.  IP owners requesting personal information must make use of this tool at least 14 days prior to a request.  Registrants will therefore have at least two weeks’ notice that their personal information may be requested.  With that knowledge, registrants can attempt to resolve a dispute with an IP owner without disclosing personal information, request that CIRA withhold their personal information, or seek legal advice as to their rights.

Although the actual fairness of the new privacy policy remains to be seen, on the surface it appears to strike a good balance between privacy concerns and the rights of IP owners.  At the very least, the personal information of dot-ca registrants is safer now than it was prior to June 10, 2008.

[1] http://www.cira.ca/en/documents/2008/PRP-request-disclosure-lawv1.1.pdf
[2] http://www.cira.ca/en/documents/2008/PRP-request-disclosure-rantv1.2.pdf

Posted in Domain Names, Privacy, Trademarks

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« American Airlines drops trademark lawsuit against Google | “You’ll never work in this town again!” Retained memory is a trade secret. »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • Who Inherits Your Likes?
  • Game of Thones – Piracy is Coming
  • AEREO, Cable, What’s The Difference?
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (158)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (15)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (54)
  • events (88)
  • Fashion Industry (22)
  • Feature Post (206)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1242)
    • Copyright (617)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (79)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (157)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (15)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (104)
      • Originality (33)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (37)
    • Patents (381)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (75)
    • Trademarks (243)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (176)
    • Canada (80)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (74)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (85)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (64)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (34)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (4)
  • WIPO (16)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736