[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment

[Derek Smythe]

I agree with Danny, Beau and many other users on these issues.

Firstly, as a registrant, I have the right to know who I am dealing 
with, who will receive my credit card details for a domain payment, who 
will have my personal details. This is extremely topical, based on the 
latest EstDomains saga.

I will also say it here: I find it ironical that certain internet 
miscreants go to great lengths to hide their true locality, using 
maildrops and non-geographical identifying email addresses, even 
international forwarding telephone numbers hiding their locality. Yet 
registrars  are allowed to do the same? How then can I expect legitimate 
registrants to supply valid domain registration details? How can I 
expect registrars to investigate invalid whois complaints if they 
themselves are trying to hide?

Just the past month again I was asked by a supposedly American registrar 
to lodge a complaint at an online form at an .au domain.

I think we each need to ask ourselves:
Would I want to do business with a company that deliberately tries to 
hide it's true locality. If not, why subject registrants to this practice.

Deviating slightly: The same can be said for privacy providers. Consider 
the following appearing in the whois of many domains:
CSMJBS Enterprises - Private Registration, 412 Lavender Ct., N. Las 
Vegas, NV,  89031-0520, US

After reading something very disturbing on the web, I had somebody 
verify this address. It does not exist. Yet this company is providing a 
private registration to hundreds of registrants. Right now all these 
registrants are unknowingly in breach of the registrant agreement and 
theoretically may lose their domains ("willfully supplied inaccurate 
whois details"), unless the registrars bend the rules!

How can we expect to uplift the public image of the domain industry if 
the proprietors are less than credible and responsible?


Brendler, Beau wrote:
> I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink have agreed to abide by these guidelines:
>
> 1. Identity:
> Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address.
> Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming their parent company.
> Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
>
> As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is necessary.
> ________________________________________
> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: NA Discuss
> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
>
> ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package.  The latest amendment added to the package is this:
>
> 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address.
>
> Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business.  The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address).
>
> Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior?  The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic.
>
> Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
>
>
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>
> ***
> Scanned
>
> **
> This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>