[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: WHOIS Issues - Tit and Tat

[Carlton Samuels]

FYI.


Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:01:48 +0200
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues

 Hi Garth,
> Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best
> way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html).
> You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it.
>
> Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a
> pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us.
We would not sue you to shut you up or stop you from doing your reports,
but we may still sue for libellous interference, i.e. spreading untrue
and harmful accusations. Even the accusation of potential breach can
seriously impact our ability to do business and is damaging to our
reputation. After you now know where our whois service is located, a
fact which you could have easily found out on your own (and probably
did), it is time to correct the report if you want to continue to claim
is is accurate in its entirety.

> Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry
> about their Port 43 WHOIS"
>
> Do you dispute this fact?
No, but I do not see where there is an obligation to do so. I do wish to
point out that we usually do resond even to the most outlandish requests
and normally your mail should have received an answer. The fact remains
however, that you could have found out the information, if you tried.
> Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) ? Reporter commented
> that fee policies were not clear"
>
> We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response.
A bit more detail would be helpful. What about our price list
(http://dd24.net/?js=1&page=domains_pricing) is unclear? I admit, due to
the large amounts of TLDs on offer, it is a bit long and unwieldy, which
may confuse someone who usually only deals with gTLD specialized
registrars, but it contains all prices on one easy to use page. I do not
know how much clearer we could display our prices.
> <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>>
>
> Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about
> it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part.
> We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the
> actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all
> sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is
> and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you
> wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about
> a previous conversation.
You claim possible breach of the RAA, so the failure to respond to your
mail cannot be the issue. The issue in that case can only be the failure
to provide the service we are bound to provide. And that simply is not
the case. Normally, you should and would have received an answer to your
mail. But our failure to respond is not an indication of potential breach.
> It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your
> website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are
> expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they
Hunt and peck? A single query of key-systems.net would suffice. No need
to seek out any other domain name. Maybe our view of openly available is
different, but I see that as very open and very available. Please note
that to be able use port 43 whois, you know what you are doing with it
and therefore will have a basic idea on how to use it.
> would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query
> like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which
> "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to
> bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any
> of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told
> you about previously.
Regarding the domain names listed:
None of them are "our sites". Three were registered through three
different resellers, one directly through our customer portal using
stolen data. One (of five) was never registered through our service.
Three that showed illegal content are now deactivated. But please use
our abuse address in the future.
> I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this
> thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy
> domains.
While GlavMed and illegal pharmacies were not part of the official
report, you are running into open doors here. We have no interest in
sponsoring illegally used domain names and will shut them down whenever
we find them. It is however impossible for us to check the use of each
domain name registered through our service. More sadly, the
registrations arrive from various sources, and do not announce
themselves to be what they are upon registration. But I do pledge I will
deactivate any domain name used for illegal (in Germany) purposes as
soon as possible whenever I receive notice.

Waiting for the apology, and I would appreciate your issueing it not
only here, but everywhere where you espoused your report and thereby
accused us of potential breach.
> <<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>>
>
> Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website.
Far from me trying to mince words, but neither is the information
buried, no is it 5 levels deep. If you look at dd24.net, our retail
portal, and click on domains, there will be an entry marked "prices".
Click it and you find the prices. It is on the third level, in a logical
place. If you want to know the prices for domain names, that is where
any sensible person would look. If you try to register a domain name,
you will also get the specific annual price of that name, presented
clear and obvious.

As we offer a wide range of TLDs, the long list of prices may seem
confusing to some, but it is the best way to structure the prices so
they can be accessed most easily. And you still did not answer the
question of what was found to be confusing.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
>> - legal department -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH
>> Im Oberen Werk 1
>> 66386 St. Ingbert
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
>>
>> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>>
 ------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:14:52 -0700
From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen at knujon.com>
To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: staff at atlarge.icann.org
Subject: [NA-Discuss] List moderation
-------------------------------------------
Folks,

I noticed my recent response to Volker was blocked, but his emails still
come through on the list. As far as I can tell Volker is neither in
North America nor is he part of At-Large.

-Garth






------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:36:36 -0700
From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen at knujon.com>
To: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Cc: michele at blacknight.ie, na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org,
       Michele at mail.key-systems.net
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues

Dear Volker, Dear Evan,

Thank you Volker, who brought this to my attention.

I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some
issues as Volker tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally
looking for a argument where there is none.

<<A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out
of context, Garth.>>

Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best
way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html).
You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it.

Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a
pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us.

<<We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such
accusations may amount to libellous[sic] interference.>>

Volker, the document reads: "Registrars in Potential Breach with
Relevant RAA Section"
-POTENTIAL-

Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry
about their Port 43 WHOIS"

Do you dispute this fact?

Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) ? Reporter commented
that fee policies were not clear"

We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response.


<<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>>

Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about
it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part.
We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the
actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all
sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is
and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you
wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about
a previous conversation.

<<Should we then be required to answer each and every mail requesting
information that is already openly available?>>

Well, yes. That's what a responsible company would do.

It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your
website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are
expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they
would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query
like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which
"looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to
bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any
of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told
you about previously.

I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this
thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy
domains.

<<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>>

Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website.

-Garth


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
> From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> Date: Fri, July 23, 2010 6:53 am
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org, gbruen at knujon.com,
> evan at telly.org
> Cc: Michele at mail.key-systems.net,
> "Neylon:"@mail.key-systems.net:Blacknight <michele at blacknight.ie>
>
>
> Dear Garth, dear Evan,
>
> thank you Michele, who brought this to my attention.
>
> I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some
> issues as Garth tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally
> looking for a breach where there is none.
> > > -Unresponsive Registrars
> > >
> > > As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their
> > > Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report,
> > > but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue
us
> > > to get us to stop asking:
> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html
> A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of
> context, Garth. Key-Systems has never hidden its port 43 whois address.
> In fact, it is listed in _every_ whois query of any one of our domains:
>
> Domain Name: KEY-SYSTEMS.NET
> Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
> Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
>
> Yet Key-Systems is listed as registrar who may be in breach do to
> possible failure to provide access to a port 43 whois server. We called
> you on that and showed you that we do provide this service and also make
> no effort to hide that service. Instead of admitting your error and
> removing the false listing of Key-Systems from your report when I
> pointed this out and requested you update your "report", you insisted
> the report was still correct in all of its claims, even though you were
> proven wrong.
>
> We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such
> accusations may amount to libellous interference. That is why we
> considered sueing Knujon, and not to get you to stop asking. Asking
> questions, based on good research is good and we support that, but
> publicly making erroneous claims of contractual breach based on the
> failure to do proper research and failure to correct them upon
> notification of the error is libel. KnuJon is trying to paint all
> registrars with the same brush, instead of singling out the actual bad
> actors, not realizing that this weakens the report as a whole.
> > In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy
> > research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is
there
> > anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that
> > "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like?
> I will always accept constructive criticism based on facts. In this case
> however, the listing of Key-Systems in that section of the KnuJon
> "report" was based on three things:
> a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net
> b) Our failure to answer an email request for that address.
> c) Failure of Knujon to  make even one webbased whois check of any one
> of our domain names, which would have immediately revealed the address
> KnuJon was unable to find: whois.rrpproxy.net
> KnuJon is making false assumptions based on insufficient and inadequate
> research. That is what I call sloppy.
> To offer anything constructive for future reports: Look, instead of
> making assumptions. If you cannot find the whois address at the first
> place you consider, try to think how else this information may be
reachable.
>
> > > But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a
> > > Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted
obligations?
> > > They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but
does
> > > not require them to tell anyone.
> Interesting point. We answer this question with every whois check done,
> as shown above. Should we then be required to answer each and every mail
> requesting information that is already openly available? Contractually,
> we are not. We are merely required to provide the service (which we do)
> in a way that it can be found and used (which we do). Accusing us of
> "not telling anyone" is ludicrous, as this services address is provided
> with any webbased whois check.
>
> One thing I have learned from this debate is that KnuJon will always be
> the first to publicly accuse others of any perceived breach to further
> their interest, but will never admit to an own error.
>
> As to the other point in the report, confusing prices, I still am not
> sure of what that means. Everywhere our customers can actually buy
> domain names from us we have a clear chart of prices available. If you
> find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.
>
> --
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
 ------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:41:34 -0400
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
To: Bob Bruen <naralo at coldrain.net>
Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Registrar Constituency meeting


On 23 July 2010 11:26, Bob Bruen <naralo at coldrain.net> wrote:

> Hi Volker (and Michele),
>
> During our debate on CircleID, Jothan Frakes suggested that KnujOn meet
> with the registrars. I thought this was a good idea and proposed it to
Mason
> Cole of the Registrar Constituency. Some registrars told him they were
> unwilling to have me come to the upcoming meeting in Cartagena, because we
> appear to be too combative. It appears to me that you and Michele are not
> afraid of intense debate (Michele once spoke out at a presentation I gave
at
> RIPE).
>
> Are you willing to try to change Mason's position, so that I can make an
> appearance at the RC meeting - open to any questions, complaints, etc?
>
> The objective is to start a serious dialogue between KnujOn and the
> registrars, beyond the current debate.
>


I support this and am prepared to ask ALAC to formally endorse this request.
You never progress peace by refusing to talk. I myself am not likely on Mr.
Cole's Christmas card list; we have already had ... issues ... regarding
ICANN's closed regional meetings. I am personally dismayed at ICANN support
staff playing the role of registrar spokesperson and gatekeeper; unless
ICANN wants to remain to be seen by the public as a trade association for
registrars, such coziness between support staff and constituents should
really be discouraged. But I digress...

As I asked before... I have seen the claims saying that Knujon's methods are
sloppy. In this exchange between Volker and Garth I have seen some instances
of mis-communications and different interpretations, but zero sloppiness.
A meeting would help to reduce the mis-communications, and should provide
useful feedback to Garth on how to avoid inadvertently listing registrars
who are doing what they should.

I note that in one case mentioned there is a distinction made between
"letter of the law" (adhering to the absolute wording of the contract) while
clearly violating the "spirit of the law" (the behavior the contract is
trying the enforce/prevent). This indeed is appropriate in the case of a
registrar who has the information on their website but puts it in a place
that's very difficult to find (ie, five levels down in the website and/or
marked just by an icon with no description). Volker, in those cases I
believe that these instances *are* fair game for Garth's attention. If the
obfuscation of the contact information is accidental, the registrar can
easily correct the situation. If the registrar is made aware of this but
ignores it, that registrar *does* deserve to be pointed out. In this case it
should be clear that the bad activity is technically within the contact but
still bad behavior as a matter of opinion. And Volker, I think you'll agree
that expressing an opinion that may be detrimental to a company, if made in
good faith (and by someone with zero stake in the company's success or
failure) is rarely actionable. This is especially so if the opinion is based
on documented and consistent policies.

OTOH, I may be siding with Volker on one point of interpretation. I don't
expect a personal email response from Google on every possible customer
service question that may arise, especially if there's an easily-findable
answer on their site. Same with Amazon (except on the specific status of my
own transactions with them). Or many other sites. This is the whole point of
sites having FAQ areas. Many companies use their websites to provide
information that reduces the burden of public-facing support staff. While
"how much personal customer service to provide" is a business decision,
handling most customer service on the website is IMO a legitimate option.

IFF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if> a registrar makes their
(accurate) WHOIS access information easily available on their website (from
a clearly labeled top level menu choice or an FAQ entry) then it may be
unnecessarily severe to downgrade them for not personally answering
questions that are already (clearly) answered. Individual email service need
not be a requirement of good behaviour if the information is easily
accessible on the company's site. I say that from the perspective of a small
business owner who doesn't have substantial resources. I create a website
FAQ section to avoid/reduce individual queries on significant issues. While
such a policy may not be as comfortable as someone might want, it is IMO a
reasonable approach that should be sufficient (should be clear and accurate)
for being seen as a "good player".

Considering the confrontational state that exists between Knojon and many
registrars, it may even be understandable why some choose not to answer
Knujon requests/surveys. However, if these site provide sufficient, accurate
and clear information on their websites, they should not be penalised for
not providing answers on the same issue by private mail.

Just my opinion.

- Evan


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:48:59 -0700
From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>
To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com>,
       "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
       <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] List moderation

Hi Garth,

Your message has been released. It was held due to too many recipients.
However, given that the ceiling of recipients is five and your message only
had four, we are following up with our mailing list host.

The NA-Discuss list is an open, public mailing list. Anyone can subscribe to
it. Volker subscribed earlier today.

Kind regards,
Heidi

-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen at knujon.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:15 AM
To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff
Subject: List moderation

Folks,

I noticed my recent response to Volker was blocked, but his emails still
come through on the list. As far as I can tell Volker is neither in
North America nor is he part of At-Large.

-Garth




------------------------------