[ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar

[Holly Raiche]

Thanks Alan

At some point, they do need to understand that the BizCN matter must be seen as what should NOT happen and however the public dialogue with ALAC goes, somewhere in there, we should be assured that they are aware that it should not fall to people like Garth to spend YEARS to have action taken.

Yes, it can be done respectfully, so a quiet word first is a good step.  But please communicate that there is real concern at the amount of time and effort that has been expended to reach an outcome that should have happened with far less time, and far more diligence on their part.


Holly
On 19 May 2014, at 11:11 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> Although I would like to see such a dialogue, Compliance is not likely to talk about the specifics of a particular registrars's case. I am more interested in the possibility of the more general case. However, I would suggest that we might want to explore this on a one-on-one basis before simply laying down the gauntlet and demanding that they do this in London.
> 
> I will explore it quietly first and report back.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 18/05/2014 06:17 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>> Hi Garth
>> 
>> Is this part of an issue to be raised with Compliance?  We could frame the question tactfully - something like - could they walk through the steps they took to go after BizCn - what they have learned and how they have/have not changed their processes accordingly.
>> 
>> Holly
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 May 2014, at 2:26 am, Garth Bruen <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > I want to thank everyone for helping move this along, especially Alan who
>> > dug into the details.
>> >
>> > This took THREE YEARS to get to. Yes, the first complaint about this issue
>> > with BizCn was June 2011. The complaints were repeatedly dismissed by
>> > Compliance. While it may seem a victory for them to finally get a breach
>> > notice, it was a shameful process getting here. While ICANN may argue that
>> > things have changed, nothing has changed in terms of facts, only the
>> > attitude of the organization has changed. We can cheer this, but there are
>> > bigger problems underneath. The way I see it there are two big questions:
>> >
>> > 1. Why, from June 2011 to March 2013 did they refuse to investigate the
>> > facts of the case, even going so far as to say the data had been verified?
>> > 2. Will the Ombudsman re-open the investigation into the matter? The failure
>> > of this office to conduct a factual investigation points to a grave loss of
>> > accountability within ICANN.
>> >
>> > Sincerely, Garth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:44 PM
>> > To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh; ALAC Working List
>> > Subject: Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
>> >
>> > Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an
>> > audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration
>> > Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw
>> > through.
>> >
>> > Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these
>> > issues.
>> >
>> > It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we
>> > raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent
>> > French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is
>> > Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at
>> > least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least.
>> >
>> > One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address
>> > associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy
>> > service.
>> >
>> > Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or
>> > even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make
>> > an additional statement to the WG?
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> > At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >> BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues
>> >> raised by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach
>> > notice.
>> >> See
>> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-e
>> >> n.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular
>> >> registrar appear to have been included in the breach notice, including
>> >> the systemic Whois inaccuracy complaints.
>> >>
>> >> Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results.
>> >>
>> >> Kind Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> ALAC mailing list
>> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> >>
>> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee
>> >> +(ALAC)
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ALAC mailing list
>> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> >
>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
>> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
>> > C)
>> >
>