[lac-discuss-en] [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10

Sun Jan 31 16:05:01 CST 2010

Well, I plan on making a formal request for ICANN to acknowledge
OnlineNIC's real address and update the directory tomorrow. If anyone
wants to digitally sign onto the letter or sponsor pushing it as a
constituency, I'm ready to go!

As for the PO box issue, I'm also ready work on this officially. 

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
> From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, January 31, 2010 3:45 pm
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org,
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> 
> The global At-Large constituency assembled at Mexico City declared its
> position very clearly on this matter.  I suspect Ray Charles would have seen
> the essence of our concerns, even if an ICANN lawyer couldn't.  It is this
> kind of unseemly dithering that leads some very reasonable people to believe
> ICANN is hostage to a particular constituency.
> 
> Carlton Samuels
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM, <na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > wrote:
> 
> > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
> >        na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >        na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >        na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1.  Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
> >      (Garth Bruen at KnujOn)
> >   2. Re:  Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
> >      (Michael Maranda)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:17:15 -0700
> > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen at knujon.com>
> > To: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO
> >        Box?
> > Message-ID:
> >        <
> > 20100130081715.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b1feb56e43.wbe at email.secureserver.net
> > >
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Dear At-Large folks,
> >
> > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited
> > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location
> > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008). The fundamental problem
> > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their
> > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate
> > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit
> > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same
> > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars
> > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the
> > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been
> > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation
> > Agreement
> > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has
> > been amended to include the following language:
> > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact
> > details including a valid email and mailing
> > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3
> > )?
> > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can
> > accept mail.
> > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business
> > address? as we recommended
> > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008), but that will have to
> > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the
> > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers
> > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately
> > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may
> > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this
> > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O.
> > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same
> > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are
> > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when
> > their business is really in Colorado.
> >
> > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its
> > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO
> > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website.
> > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM), which runs from a PO
> > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website
> > not even a phone number.
> >
> > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and
> > other Caribbean locations.  DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to
> > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans.
> > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It
> > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans
> > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of
> > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do
> > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the
> > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George
> > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104
> > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both
> > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not.
> >
> > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since
> > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite
> > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to
> > their rented postal boxes.  There are at least a dozen Registrars with
> > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains
> > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was
> > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the
> > true nature of the Registration business
> > (
> > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212002478
> > ).
> > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud.
> >
> > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified
> > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains
> > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008). Parava were later
> > de-accredited for other contract violations
> > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf).
> > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the
> > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is
> > identification.
> >
> > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation:
> > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The
> > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN
> > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot
> > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184). There are two other
> > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent
> > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could
> > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are
> > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the
> > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related
> > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China.
> > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending
> > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with
> > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead
> > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly
> > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the
> > directory.
> >
> > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of
> > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used
> > in Registrar accreditation applications.
> >
> > More info:
> >
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_box/
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration, Garth
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> >  Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat...
> >
> > Garth Bruen
> > gbruen at knujon.com
> > http://www.knujon.com
> > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724
> > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205
> > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/
> > Twitter: @Knujon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:49:05 -0600
> > From: Michael Maranda <tropology at gmail.com>
> > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com>
> > Cc: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org,
> >        na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO
> >        Box?
> > Message-ID:
> >        <3feff8d61001300749k1cf0352bya7c60407a1517710 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> >
> > If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward.
> >
> > -Michael Maranda
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Dear At-Large folks,
> > >
> > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited
> > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location
> > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008). The fundamental problem
> > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their
> > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate
> > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit
> > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same
> > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars
> > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the
> > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been
> > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation
> > > Agreement
> > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has
> > > been amended to include the following language:
> > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact
> > > details including a valid email and mailing
> > > address.(
> > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3)
> > > ?
> > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can
> > > accept mail.
> > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business
> > > address? as we recommended
> > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008), but that will have to
> > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the
> > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers
> > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately
> > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may
> > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this
> > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O.
> > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same
> > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are
> > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when
> > > their business is really in Colorado.
> > >
> > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its
> > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO
> > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website.
> > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM), which runs from a PO
> > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website
> > > not even a phone number.
> > >
> > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and
> > > other Caribbean locations.  DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to
> > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans.
> > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It
> > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans
> > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of
> > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do
> > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the
> > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George
> > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104
> > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both
> > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not.
> > >
> > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since
> > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite
> > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to
> > > their rented postal boxes.  There are at least a dozen Registrars with
> > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains
> > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was
> > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the
> > > true nature of the Registration business
> > > (
> > >
> > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212002478
> > > ).
> > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud.
> > >
> > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified
> > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains
> > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008). Parava were later
> > > de-accredited for other contract violations
> > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf).
> > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the
> > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is
> > > identification.
> > >
> > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation:
> > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The
> > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN
> > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot
> > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184). There are two other
> > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent
> > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could
> > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are
> > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the
> > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related
> > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China.
> > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending
> > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with
> > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead
> > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly
> > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of
> > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used
> > > in Registrar accreditation applications.
> > >
> > > More info:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_box/
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------
> > >  Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat...
> > >
> > > Garth Bruen
> > > gbruen at knujon.com
> > > http://www.knujon.com
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724
> > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205
> > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/
> > > Twitter: @Knujon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------
> > > 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
> > > ------
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> >
> > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
> > ******************************************
> >
> ------
> 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
> ------