[lac-discuss-en] Fwd:WHOIS Violations

Tue Jun 8 23:03:05 CDT 2010

Since I didn't fully grasp the numbers involved, I've took the
http://www.knujon.com/whoisblockingwhois.html page into a Google
Spreadsheet :
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdGNJLVU0azhTMTR4ZjFfOVZEZUJ1VWc&hl=en_GB&single=true&gid=1&output=html

The results :

Out of 341 unique registrars tested for functioning or published Port
43 WHOIS accessibility on 6/6/2010,
242 registrars passed,
while 99 registrars failed which is 29% of the registrars tested.

---
Dev Anand Teelucksingh

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> FyI, a very detailed report on WHOIS matter from KnuJon.   Garth Breun is a
> member of the WHOIS WG.
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
>
> Dear At-Large and ALAC,
>
> On April 16 ICANN issued a breach notice to Turkish Registrar Alantron
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-acir-16apr10-en.pdf)
> for not consistently providing access to its WHOIS database via Port 43,
> a command-line query location that all Registrars are required to supply
> under conditions of their contract with ICANN
> (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) under
> section 3.3.1. Four days later they issued a breach to Internet Group do
> Brazil for the same problem
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malinardi-02apr10-en.pdf).
> WHOIS is a critical resource that makes the Internet function the way it
> is expected to. It is also at tool of consumer trust and investigation.
> Without Port 43 access ICANN?s WDPRS compliance system does not work.
> The WHOIS record, as we all know, is a massive fraud with illicit
> parties filling records with bogus information and hiding behind
> anonymity. Fake WHOIS records are typically initiated by the registrant
> and only technically become the Registrar?s problem after a complaint
> is filed. The issue of blocking access to the WHOIS record is strictly
> the province of the Registrar.
>
> Coincidentally, while parties unknown to us filed complaints against
> Alantron and Internet Group do Brazil, KnujOn was conducting its own
> far-reaching audit of Port 43. For a period 71 days KnujOn tested the
> Port 43 WHOIS accessibility of each unique Registrar, we did not test
> multiple accreditations held by the same companies and only tested once
> per day to avoid being blacklisted. We also tested at different times of
> the day each time to avoid possible regular maintenance periods and
> discarded results if the Registrar?s service only failed once in
> during the study period. The full results, and ongoing testing of Port
> 43 access, are posted at: http://www.knujon.com/whoisblockingwhois.html
>
> In addition to testing access, we also tested how easy it was to find
> the Port 43 location of each Registrar. In most cases the Port 43 is
> logically located at WHOIS.[REGISTRARDOMAIN].[TLD], for example
> ?whois.networksolutions.com? for NetworkSolutions. Sometimes it is
> located at a different domain as in the case of Xin Net, the Port 43 is
> hosted at whois.paycenter.com.cn. In most cases we were able to find
> alternate Registrar WHOIS locations easily but for scores of them we had
> to ask the Registrar. A handful quickly responded with the correct
> location, but most never responded, and in a few cases our email was
> rejected from the ICANN-listed Registrar contact email. A small minority
> wanted to know why we were asking, but we logged this as non-response
> since the RAA does allow for Registrar discrimination in the access to
> WHOIS.
>
> Marcaria.com International, Inc. was the worst, their Port 43 WHOIS
> worked at beginning of test period and stopped responding on March 30
> for a total of 14 successful days out of 71. That Darn Name, Inc., which
> became intrustdomains.com during the test period, had serious regular
> outages only responding a total of 38 days, slightly more than a 50%
> success rate. South America Domains Ltd. dba namefrog.com also started
> off OK but ceased responding after 46 days on May 10.
>
> OnlineNIC had the worst record in terms of consistency, failing 25
> times, intermittently during the study period making their reliability
> about 65%. OnLineNic was in fact worse during the study period than
> Alantron. In addition to OnlineNIC being worse than Alantron during this
> period, World Biz Domains had the exact same Port 43 record responding
> only 79% of the time.
>
> Netfirms, Inc. failed 12 times, Freeparking Domain Registrars, Inc. 9
> times. Good Luck Internet Services, Hebei Guoji Maoyi, Jetpack Domains,
> Inc., United Domain Registry, Inc. all failed on 8 days. NetraCorp LLC
> ,NamesBeyond7, and Web Commerce Communications failed 7 times. GKG.NET,
> INC. and Netpia.com, Inc. failed 4 times. 3 failures for Paknic.
> Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc., Galcomm, Inc. Guangzhou Ming Yang,
> Internet Invest, Moniker, Nordreg AB, Visesh Infotecnics Ltd., SiteName
> Ltd. and Regtime all filed twice.
>
> All Internet companies have technical issues. Even Google and Microsoft
> do. Much more troubling were the 57 Registrars who would not disclose
> their Port 43 location to us: 21Company, Hu Yi Global, Abansys, 1st
> Antagus Internet, AOL LLC, Aruba SpA, Aust Domains, Brights Consulting,
> chinagov.cn, China Springboard, Cronon AG Berlin, AllGlobalNames,
> VocalSpace, Digitrad France, Samjung Data Service, Netdorm, French
> Connexion, Domain Jamboree, Spirit Telecom, Domain Monkeys,
> Webagentur.at, DomainRegistry.com Inc, DomainSpa, Ledl.net, DotArai, Gee
> Whiz Domains, Hetzner Online, Digirati Informatica, Hostway Services, ID
> Genesis, Instra Corporation, Interdomain, Intermedia.NET, InterNetworX
> Ltd, Internet Solutions, FBS Inc, iWelt AG, Key-Systems, Launchpad, Inc,
> Advantage Interactive, Add2Net Inc, Planete Marseille, Melbourne IT DBS,
> M. G. Infocom, Nameshield, New Great Domains, GMO Internet, Porting
> Access, AB RIKTAD, Sedo.com, Simply Named, Domain Services Rotterdam BV,
> UK2 Group, HooYoo (US), Verelink, Web Business, and Xiamen ChinaSource.
>
> Our emails to Internet Group do Brasil and Black Ice Domains, Inc. were
> rejected. For each we used the contact email located in the ICANN
> Registrar directory. Secura GmbH would not disclose the Port 43 location
> and asked us why we wanted to know. Humeia Corporation would not
> disclose the Port 43 location and told us to use the InterNIC WHOIS
> lookup. Domainfactory GmbH said they were not an ICANN-accredited
> Registrar and thus not required to have a public WHOIS. However they are
> listed as an accredited Registrar by ICANN and sell gTLD domains on
> their website. We are requesting ICANN clarification on this issue.
>
> All of this information has been forwarded to ICANN compliance and we
> hope it can be resolved quickly. This is merely one section of a much
> large report we will be publishing soon.
>
> -Garth
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>