.Ca is getting a whois overhaul. Perhaps the rest of the domain world can use it as a framework.

There have been a number of suggested changes to ICANN’s whois framework. But Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is making changes to its .ca country code on its own. Canada-based domain registrar Tucows (AMEX: TCX) is reporting that CIRA will make sweeping changes to its whois policies on June 10:

-Whois registrant data will be made private by default. It will be “opt-in” if registrants want their information public.
-Whois data for corporations and organizations will be public by default with an opt-out in certain circumstances. (This may mean that domains with an organization as the registrant will not get privacy).
-.Ca domain registrants can be contacted via a contact form on CIRA’s web site

I’m generally in favor of keeping domain registrant data public. But CIRA’s new policy reminds me of an idea I proposed a while back: “masking” e-mail addresses in whois.

Essentially, all domain names would be assigned a masked email address such as domainnamewirecom@icann.org. This would be a forwarding address to the registrant’s actual email. This would serve a couple purposes:

1. ICANN could track whois spammers
2. If the email forward bounced, ICANN would know that the registrant had invalid information and could inform their registrar

I think we’ll see changes to whois privacy rules for non-country code domains in the future. But the future may be a ways off.

Don’t take the headline too literally. Read on.

I just booked my plane tickets to this month’s TRAFFIC conference at Disney World. It should be a great event with wonderful surroundings. But there are handful of people who probably won’t be welcome at this event: Disney cybersquatters.

“Disney” is certainly one of the most cybersquatted brands. In particular, typosquatting is rampant because many of the people looking for Disney sites are kids.

A quick look through National Arbitration Forum proceedings shows 54 cases involving Disney Enterprises. There are likely many more under different corporate names.

There are traditional cybersquatting cases such as MickeyMouseClub.com, DisneyLandHotel.com, and DisneyOutlet.com. Then there are the typosquatting cases, such as Desperate Housewives typo DesparateHousewives.com, and disneychannal.com and disnay.com.

Of the 54 cases I found, Disney won all but one: Tinkerbell.com.

So if you own any Disney related domains, perhaps you shouldn’t visit Orlando.

I, on the other hand, would like to sell Disney on a “proactive registration service” so it won’t have to spend so much on legal fees getting these domains back after-the-fact.

I’m arriving in Orlando Tuesday May 20 and heading out during the auction Friday afternoon. If you’ll be there, drop me a note so we can connect.

A proposal to rectify bad UDRP decisions when there is dissenting opinion.

If you read any of the domain blogs and forums out there, you probably read about the recent LH.com UDRP decision courtesy of a three person panel at National Arbitration Forum. The panel handed over the generic domain name LH.com to airline Lufthansa.

Apparently two of the panelists (Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson and David Tatham) didn’t find the irony in their acknowledgment that LH.com’s owner, Future Media Architects, invests in a number of two and three character domain names, and thus probably didn’t even have Lufthansa in the back of its minds when it registered the domain name.

But one panelist, David E. Sorkin, understood that. He dissented on the opinion, writing:

I respectfully dissent. I simply do not believe it is likely that Respondent’s reasons for acquiring the disputed domain name were related in any way to Complainant or its mark, and therefore would not find that the domain name was registered in bad faith, as required by Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

So one panelist got it right, two got it completely wrong, but Future Media Architects loses the domain. Well, not immediately. Future Media Architects has filed a lawsuit to keep the domain name. You can’t blame it. This domain has a liquidation value of $200,000 or more, and a 7 figure end user value.

But why should this go to the courts now? I propose a change to UDRP arbitration when there is a split panel: either side can request one additional three person panel review.

In this case, Future Media Architects could request a new review with three new panelists. If it loses again, it has to appeal outside of the arbitration system (i.e. lawsuit). If the new panel has a few smart folks on it, the matter will be settled by a unanimous decision.

What do you think?

GoDaddy complies with ICANN advisory for transferring domain names.

Last September I wrote that GoDaddy might have to end its controversial practice of denying transfers-out when a domain owner changes whois information in the preceding 60 days.

A few weeks ago ICANN finalized the advisory that I wrote about, and it seems to target GoDaddy specifically. The advisory basically says that registrars can’t deny transfer requests due to changes in whois information, as this would violate ICANN rules that require registrants to keep their data up-to-date. Furthermore, it specifically says registrars can’t make users “opt-in” to the lock when they change whois information (something that GoDaddy did).

I contacted GoDaddy earlier this month to see if it was complying with the advisory. Tim Ruiz, Go Daddy’s Vice President of Corporate Development & Policy, said in a statement “Go Daddy always has and will continue to comply with ICANN rules and regulations.”

Fair enough, but I decided to test it by changing my whois information for FileVirtualization.com and then transferring it to Moniker the next day. I’m happy to report that the transfer was successful.

Network Solutions is the only other major registrar I know that put 60 day locks on domains. The company has not responded to repeated requests for comment about this issue.

It’s worth noting that ICANN’s advisory lacks teeth. The only thing ICANN can do to stop a registrar from a practice like this is to take away its accreditation. This is a “nucleur option” and rarely practiced until it’s too late — and wouldn’t be used against the world’s biggest registrar unless the situation was dire. ICANN needs the power to levy fines against registrars who fail to comply.

Comedian files arbitration request to get hands on domain name.

Comedian Jerry Seinfeld or his management company or Sony is going after the domain name JerrySeinfeld.com, currently owned by Anything.com LTD. The case commenced on April 22 and will be handled by National Arbitration Forum.

At first glance, JerrySeinfeld.com looks like a fan site. It has the slogan “An Unofficial Fan site” and includes a bio of the comedian and links to a couple other sites devoted to Seinfeld. It also includes the disclaimer:

“THIS IS AN UNOFFICIAL FAN SITE. THIS SITE IS NOT ENDORSED OR AUTHORIZED BY JERRY SEINFELD OR BY ANY PARTY OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THIS SITE.”

But if you click any of the links on the left side of the page, you quickly see that this is a glorified parking page (see update below). All of the links lead to a secondary page with nothing but ads. Clever approach, but I doubt the panel will look at the site as anything but a parking page.

Anything.com is no stranger to the UDRP arbitration process. In 2002 it lost control of Flamingo.com to casino operator Park Place Entertainment. In 2000 it held onto the domains KIS.com, EZStreet.com, and VZ.com. A quick review suggests it hasn’t been hit with a complain in a while, at least under its main company name.

The official Sony web site for Seinfeld’s famous “Seinfeld” TV show is Seinfeld.com.

[UPDATED 4/28/08 1PM CST: The attorney for Anything.com reports that the company will voluntarily give the domain name to Seinfeld. Also, the ad links have been removed.]