[NA-Discuss] So public disclosure is a laughing matter

Tue Dec 7 17:05:49 UTC 2010

..Stacy, actually..Stacy Burnett

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com>wrote:

> Carlton,
>
> Was it Stacy or Pam?
>
> The irony is lost on them. The point is that is makes no difference
> between RAA 2001 and RAA 2009, "NONE" of the Registrars are in violation
> because the rules are not enforced. The RAA in any version effectively
> does not exist.
>
> OnLineNIC was allowed to re-up without complying so there is no clearly
> distinction between the two, RAA amendments are just for show,
> disclosure to the Internet consumer is a laughing matter. Will it be the
> same for the law enforcement amendments?
>
> The joke will be them as we watch and see the rest signed on to the 2009
> RAA without complying.
>
> -Garth
>
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still
> > in the Shadows
> > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, December 07, 2010 11:42 am
> > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen at knujon.com>
> > Cc: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>,
> > na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> >
> > Garth:
> > FYI, I hope you were listening the the ICANN Compliance lady.
> Essentially,
> > the argument is you're only nearly half-right in certain respects since
> only
> > 12 of the outfits you fingered are in breach by virtue of signing the
> 2009
> > RAA!!!
> >
> > [Well, blow me down with a feather!!  I'm just gobsmacked that anyone yet
> > sentient in 2001 would've concluded a contract with entities whose
> business
> > models are Cyb-enabled and powered entirely on line and forgot to ask
> them
> > for an address record/label that embraced the pre-eminent communications
> > modality in the Cyb world!!]
> >
> > Of course that is not the way she said it; classic propaganda back-in -
> she
> > trumpeted the number NOT in breach that was listed according to the 2009
> RAA
> > compliance criteria.  That way she subtly invited those in the room and
> > following to raise the trust relationship.
> >
> > In closing, she belly-ached - prettily again! - about the 'sarcasm'
> flowing
> > her way.  Slick, this one....and bears watching.
> >
> > Carlton
> >
> > ==============================
> > Carlton A Samuels
> > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> > =============================
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <
> gbruen at knujon.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Beau,
> > >
> > > If true that would be in line with other statements made Mr. Pritz.
> This
> > > is why David Giza was fired, right? He was actually going to follow-up
> > > on complaints and bring the compliance process cycle out for public
> > > view. Now, a clear message has been sent to ICANN staff: don't enforce
> > > the rules and don't talk about our procedures. At the Mexico meeting
> the
> > > compliance auditor pulled me aside and said he was concerned about
> > > several Registrars and might want my help. He's gone too.
> > >
> > > When I asked Mr. Pritz on an Internet Governance Forum conference call
> > > what happened to ICANN compliance he waved off my questions and said
> > > there was a vigorous search going on to fill the three vacant
> compliance
> > > positions. But where are they? It's been six months since Giza was
> > > removed.
> > >
> > > Yes, there are more breach notices: for failure to pay fees.
> > >
> > > Compliance is not working and I suspect this is intentional.
> > >
> > > -Garth
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still
> > > > in the Shadows
> > > > From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> > > > Date: Mon, December 06, 2010 9:35 am
> > > > To: gbruen at knujon.com, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight"
> > > > <michele at blacknight.ie>,  Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> >
> > > > Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I found Kurt Pritz's reply to my question on compliance at
> yesterday's
> > > presentation in Cartagena rather revealing (and that's assuming I heard
> it
> > > correctly, we will need to listen to the tape). But I am fairly sure I
> heard
> > > him say, in response to my statement that a number of registrars remain
> out
> > > of compliance with the RAA and that some of us in the community don't
> really
> > > think ICANN believes it can enforce contracts, that "enforcement was an
> > > interesting question with several answers." (That's not an exact quote,
> but
> > > it was something similarly mysterious and vague). That sounds to me, to
> > > quote Carlton, that all animals are created equal but some more than
> others.
> > > Is OnlineNIC one of them? I have plenty of evidence, independent from
> > > Knujon, that OnlineNIC is out of compliance with the RAA, and that they
> were
> > > allowed to re-up, and continue their merry way.
> > > >
> > > > I was also concerned that Kurt seemed to characterize compliance
> progress
> > > as a factor of the number of breach notices steadily increasing. The
> > > meaningful statistic would be: How many of those breach notices are
> > > resolved? And if the system was really working, breach notices should
> be
> > > going down, not up. It's great that ICANN's strategic plan mentions
> security
> > > and contract compliance as goals, but those are going to be tough to
> achieve
> > > with no functioning compliance department.
> > > >
> > > > Repeatedly we have heard the registrar community voice its resistance
> to
> > > oversight and "regulation." But the registrar community should not be
> trying
> > > to shoot the messenger here; it should be considering how to
> self-police its
> > > ranks. If ICANN is not going to do its job, let's dismantle ICANN and
> take
> > > user and consumer concerns to the press, to international law
> enforcement
> > > bodies, and see if we can make better progress.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: gbruen at knujon.com
> > > > >Sent: Dec 6, 2010 8:30 AM
> > > > >To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie>, Carlton
> > > Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> > > > >Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later,   Dozens of Registrars
> Still
> > > in the Shadows
> > > > >
> > > > >I checked into the claims by Michele (or maybe I should address you
> as
> > > > >"Blacknight"?) and my suspicions were confirmed. He has completely
> > > distorted
> > > > >the issues  and ignored the critical problem. Active Registrar,
> Compana,
> > > > >Directi, DOTALLIANCE, EVERYONES INTERNET, NICCO, RESELLER SERVICES,
> UK2
> > > > >GROUP, VOLUSION, YNOT DOMAINS,  and OWN IDENTITY have not corrected
> the
> > > > >problem as cited since June and ICANN compliance has not addressed
> the
> > > > >issue. You've glossed over this.
> > > > >
> > > > >You've also glossed over the fact that OnLineNIC was allowed to sign
> on
> > > to
> > > > >the 2009 RAA without first complying and has not been held to comply
> > > since,
> > > > >even through we were informed they would be held to the RAA after
> > > signing.
> > > > >
> > > > >In our original report we expressed our concern the the other
> Registrars
> > > > >would also be allowed to re-sign without meeting this requirement,
> and
> > > why
> > > > >should they have to when it's not enforced? Why would they opt for
> > > public
> > > > >disclosure when their competitors are not held by any standard? Does
> > > this
> > > > >not concern you?
> > > > >
> > > > >The RAA has become meaningless and the Internet user DESERVERS
> BETTER.
> > > > >
> > > > >If you purport to be a leader in this community you'll expect better
> > > too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >--------------------------------------------------
> > > > >From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie>
> > > > >Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:31 PM
> > > > >To: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> > > > >Cc: <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > > > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars
> Still in
> > > the
> > > > >Shadows
> > > > >
> > > > >> I checked into the claims by Knujon and my suspicions were
> confirmed.
> > > > >> Of the registrars supposedly in breach 50% are NOT on the 2009
> RAA.
> > > They
> > > > >> are, therefore, NOT in breach, so I wonder how long we will have
> to
> > > wait
> > > > >> for a corrected / updated version of this  report
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Michele
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mr. Michele Neylon
> > > > >> Blacknight
> > > > >> http://Blacknight.tel
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 4 Dec 2010, at 23:14, "Carlton Samuels" <
> carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Garth:
> > > > >>> I commend you and KnuJon for keeping at this issue.  It is one
> thing
> > > to
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>> the slacker in a contract.  But the fact that ICANN fails to
> embrace
> > > its
> > > > >>> duty of care to the community in ensuring that contracted parties
> > > live up
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>> the terms and condition of contract remains scandalous.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The low hanging fruit of an explanation would be ignorance of its
> > > > >>> commitment.  But reason and good judgment suggests that this
> would be
> > > a
> > > > >>> stretch for explanation.  Time enough for ICANN to rise to the
> > > occasion
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> do its duty.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Carlton
> > > > >>> [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ==============================
> > > > >>> Carlton A Samuels
> > > > >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > > > >>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> > > > >>> =============================
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>  1.  Two Years Later Dozens of Registrars Still in the
> > >  Shadows
> > > > >>>>     (Garth Bruen at KnujOn)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Message: 1
> > > > >>>> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:49:35 -0700
> > > > >>>> From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen at knujon.com>
> > > > >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Two Years Later Dozens of Registrars Still
> in
> > > > >>>>       the     Shadows
> > > > >>>> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> In June of 2008 KnujOn reported that 70 Registrars did not have
> a
> > > > >>>> business address listed in the InterNIC Registrar Directory.
> Only
> > > after
> > > > >>>> reporting a month later that little had changed did ICANN
> perform a
> > > mass
> > > > >>>> update of the directory. On further inspection we found many of
> the
> > > > >>>> newly disclosed addresses were phantom locations, false
> addresses,
> > > and
> > > > >>>> PO boxes. This lead to a push to amend the RAA and require
> Registrar
> > > > >>>> location disclosure and resulted in RAA 3.16: "Registrar shall
> > > provide
> > > > >>>> on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid
> email
> > > and
> > > > >>>> mailing address." However, policy without policy enforcement is
> > > useless.
> > > > >>>> So far ICANN compliance has failed to enforce this rule even
> after
> > > being
> > > > >>>> provided with extensive evidence in June, 2010. In fact, several
> > > > >>>> Registrars cited five months ago for not posting their address
> have
> > > been
> > > > >>>> allowed to renew their accreditation without complying.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The following Registrars still do not disclose their address on
> > > their
> > > > >>>> website as required in RAA 3.16 and are in continued violation:
> > > Active
> > > > >>>> Registrar, Inc. (activeregistrar.com), COMPANA LLC (
> budgetnames.com
> > > ),
> > > > >>>> Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. (publicdomainregistry.com),
> > > DOTALLIANCE
> > > > >>>> INC (dotalliance.com), EVERYONES INTERNET LTD. (resellone.net),
> > > NICCO
> > > > >>>> LTD. (nicco.com), RESELLER SERVICES INC. (ResellServ.com), UK2
> > > GROUP
> > > > >>>> LTD. (uk2group.com), VOLUSION, INC. (volusion.com), YNOT
> DOMAINS
> > > CORP
> > > > >>>> (myorderbox.com), PREMIUM REGISTRATIONS SWEDEN
> > > > >>>> (premiumregistrations.com), AB CONNECT (hosteur.com), FUNPEAS
> MEDIA
> > > > >>>> VENTURES, LLC DBA DOMAINPROCESSOR.COM, DomainContext, Inc.
> > > > >>>> (isregistrar.com), NEW GREAT DOMAINS (newgreatdomains.com),
> > > ONLINENIC
> > > > >>>> INC. (onlinenic.com), OPEN SYSTEM LTD. (turbosite.com.br), OWN
> > > IDENTITY
> > > > >>>> INC (ownidentity.com), PACNAMES LTD (pacnames.com),
> QUANTUMPAGES
> > > > >>>> TECHNOLOGIES (ownregistrar.com), ULTRARPM INC. (metapredict.com
> ),
> > > WEBAIR
> > > > >>>> INTERNET DEVELOPMENT (webair.com), ZOG MEDIA, INC. (
> zognames.com),
> > > > >>>> NAMEHOUSE, INC. (namehouse.net). The good news is that most of
> the
> > > 400
> > > > >>>> plus unique Registrars clearly provide their address in the home
> > > page
> > > > >>>> footer, a CONTACT US, or ABOUT US link and several Registrars
> cited
> > > in
> > > > >>>> June have since done so. Some Registrars bury the address in
> legal
> > > > >>>> documents, while we do not consider this compliant ICANN
> provides no
> > > > >>>> clear direction on where the address should be posted.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> OnLineNIC is particularly troubling since their purported public
> > > > >>>> location is an empty lot in California with their true location
> > > being in
> > > > >>>> China, but only privately disclosed to ICANN. OnLineNIC's own
> domain
> > > > >>>> registration has been cited multiple times by KnujOn as being
> false.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Additionally, KnujOn has discovered that nine Registrars have
> > > > >>>> non-functional contact email addresses posted in the InterNIC
> > > directory:
> > > > >>>> RU-CENTER, Best Bulk Register (also has a breach notice for
> failure
> > > to
> > > > >>>> pay fees), Dynamic Network Services, Europe Domains, Homestead
> > > Limited,
> > > > >>>> HTTP.NET, Namescout, Hostmaster.ca, Nameshare Inc, and Universo
> > > Online.
> > > > >>>> Details of the email failures along with other results will be
> > > published
> > > > >>>> in our supplemental report on Monday December 6th.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> RAA 3.16 is not the only unenforced contract obligation. In
> fact,
> > > most
> > > > >>>> of the RAA is unenforced with the exception being the Cardinal
> Sin
> > > of
> > > > >>>> failing to pay ICANN fees. KnujOn will actually detail an
> > > unprecedented
> > > > >>>> case in which a Registrar termination was reversed after back
> fees
> > > were
> > > > >>>> paid.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> While Registrars control the content of their websites, ICANN
> really
> > > is
> > > > >>>> to blame for the failure to enforce the RAA and the
> anti-transparent
> > > > >>>> practice of having one Registrar directory for public
> consumption
> > > with
> > > > >>>> bad information and another internal list for their use.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Full article:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > >
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101203_two_years_later_dozens_of_registrars_still_in_the_shadows/
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -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
> > > > >>>> Shop: http://www.cafepress.com/knujon
> > > > >>>> Bookstore: http://astore.amazon.com/knujocom-20
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> ------
> > > > >>> NA-Discuss mailing list
> > > > >>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Visit the NARALO on line at http://www.naralo.org
> > > > >>> ------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------
> > > > >> NA-Discuss mailing list
> > > > >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Visit the NARALO on line at http://www.naralo.org
> > > > >> ------
> > > > >>
> > > > >------
> > > > >NA-Discuss mailing list
> > > > >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > > > >
> > > > >Visit the NARALO on line at http://www.naralo.org
> > > > >------
> > >
> > >
>
>