GoDaddy doesn't sell .CA domains, and they don't offer a service whereby they will list their own snail-mail address, as far as I am aware.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 06:57:20PM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > ...and more importantly, in the final stages of figuring out how those of > our resellers that want to offer a service of this nature can (and stay on > the right side of the various policies). I've been offering the email forwarding flavour of this for some time now -- http://www.it.ca/services/addressprivacy has the details. The thing I was asking about was the *physical* address, and how all this forwarding stuff is viewed by CIRA. I tried calling CIRA to ask them about their policies with regard to this matter. Oddly, Marc at CIRA told me that I should ask Tucows about this aspect of CIRA policy. Why CIRA thinks that Tucows will be better at clarifying CIRA's policies than CIRA, is beyond me, but Marc was adamant that the only entity who can tell me whether this address issue violates CIRA policy would be Tucows. (I'm sure the CIRA BoD will be glad to hear that Tucows now defines their policies. ;> ) > I'd be interested in hearing more about whether or not you all have any > ideas as to how much your customers are willing to pay for enhanced privacy > (or if indeed they are at all...) I don't do it for extra money, I do it to reduce churn, and for the good will generated by protecting existing customers from nasties like DROC and Verisign. The email filtering doesn't cost me anything significant. Our post office box already gets tonnes of DROA and Verisign crap that gets tossed into the recycling bin at the post office. If the volume grew to the point that it was a problem, I'd consider approaching DROA and asking them to save the postage on anything with our postal code.... p > -rwr > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "elliot noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Chvostek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:48 PM > Subject: Re: protecting ourselves from scammers > > > > .....it is also worth noting that this has been done by folks other than > > GoDaddy for some time. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Paul Chvostek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:26 PM > > Subject: Re: protecting ourselves from scammers > > > > > > > Go Daddy has started offering Whois Records of this nature and they keep > > > the 'true' whois information internally. Their reational is that the > > > information needs to be available should a legal entity subpeona the > > > records but users should haver the right to unlisted domain names. They > > > claim to have done the legal research and have ICANN approval. > > > > > > I am not an attorney but their claim makes sense to me. I am currently > > > implementing a system similar. Where the whois info will read > customer777 > > > at TLD Systems, mailing address Box 777 at TLD Systems with the email > > > address being [EMAIL PROTECTED] and that email address being > > > forwarded to a mailbox that the domain owner has access to. > > > > > > In this way the Whois information is technically acccurate since the > > > information can be used to contact the domain owner. And the owner can > > > respond to snail mail and email. But their identity is protected. > > > > > > This works fine for com / net / org. I have not yet researched how well > > > if works with us / info / biz nor has it been tested through the legal > > > system. But we have all of the contact information locally should the > > > need arise. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Paul Chvostek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Over the last few days, I've noticed a number of domains with admin > > > > contact records listing the name of the admin contact but a physical > > > > address that is "c/o" the ISP's address. > > > > > > > > Presumably this practise is being recommended by some ISPs trying to > > > > thwart the confusion generated by DROC and the like, but does anyone > > > > have an opinion as to the legality of it? Especially for .CA domains? > > > > > > > > Does "care-of" on a contact record imply any sort of legal > relationship > > > > between the registrant and the listed company? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Paul Chvostek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Operations / Abuse / Whatever +1 416 598-0000 it.canada - hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
