[RAA-WG] Compliance Department Staff Size Insufficient

Tue Aug 28 20:31:24 CDT 2007

Derek and all,

  I understood your original remarks, so no harm done as far
as I am concerned.

  I also agree bad faith domain names are indeed a problem
and the UDRP was originally, and remains an ineffective
method in which to deal with registrars whom do not address
those problems.  The earlier example which Danny pointed out,
cocaco1a.com and it's association with Googlemail.com and 
aboutus.com significantly points out how this sort of poor
managment by some registrars and registrants is prevalent as 
well for similar reasons as well as my pointing out the 
mis-configuration of their DNS, incorrect/inaccurate admin 
contact information via Email, for those domains, 
< cocaco1a.com,googlemail.com and aboutus.com >.

  Worse yet is registrant abuse by registrars which many
examples over the past four years have been documented, reported,
and continue to be reported when transfer of domain names to
a different registrar is requested, and/or when correction of 
registration data for a registered domain is sent in notification,
and also when double billing for re-registration often occurs and
is never corrected simply because the registrar is either not
available or is unwilling to make the necessary correction(s).

-----Original Message-----
>From: Derek Smythe <derek at aa419.org>
>Sent: Aug 28, 2007 5:54 PM
>To: RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] Compliance Department Staff Size Insufficient
>
>If I gave anybody the idea that I said that the cocaco1a.com is used
>for scams, apologies, this is and never was my intention.
>
>What I am trying to point out is a case similar to the typo-squatting,
>yet done deliberately and for nefarious purposes.
>
>As Randy correctly points out, the Respondent lost the case. As Randy
>also correctly points out, it "should" be a no competition situation
>if the contact info is invalid and someone should seek an ICANN UDRP
>resolution.
>
>In this case a UDRP resolution was sought and was won by e-gold.com.
>Yet the domains still stay in control of the respondent up to today,
>still being used for nefarious purposes. So how can such a situation
>exist? Why can many such domains still exist?
>
>This is an example of the problem:
>http://www.3-gold.com , http://www.e-gild.com etc
>Currently at IP 220.232.130.51 and not under e-gold.com's control. All 
>links point to e-gold.com, except accessing your account! (Feel free 
>to check with e-gold.com, it does not belong to them).
>
>This should have never even gone the UDRP route. But it did and the
>process failed and still fails. It should be noted many Registrars
>will insist on this route. Randy, I gather we agree this is the
>incorrect tool in this instance and similar cases? If it were, certain
>popular target banks would be bankrupted by UDRP fees in a year.
>
>I am sure we all see the problem here.
>
>My point is that situations like these occur on a regular basis and
>will continue to the detriment on the general Internet populace if
>some form of checks and balances are not built into the RAA. Some
>registrars do the industry proud, others sadly do not. Per day I can
>show numerous bad faith domains with lookalike names imitating banks
>and other valid institutions, all used in fraud. Invariably the only
>valid contact data would be a disposable email address, totally
>untraceable. Terminating the hosting account is not always the problem
>(bullet proof hosting and host jumping).
>
>Claiming this to be in the space of law enforcement is impractical.
>This simply does not happen at this level, yet does untold damage
>running into billions of dollars.
>
>Without checks and balances to ensure bad faith domains are dealt with
>promptly, all the good work done here will be void in the creation of
>the perfect vehicle for Internet crime.
>
>I would suggest a cleanup fee that ICANN may charge Registrars if they
>ignore such domains. That way ICANN may be able to afford more than
>two people to attend to this issue (if Danny is correct). This is just
>one suggestion.
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
>Derek Smythe
>http://www.aa419.org
>
>
>   RJGlass | America at Large wrote:
>> Not trying to defend bad-faith registrants, but in the case noted below 
>> (http://www.arbforum.com
>> 
>>     /domains/decisions/109054.htm)
>> 
>> 
>> The point of this issue is quoted from the case:
>> "Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact 
>> details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the 
>> Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default."
>> 
>> The respondent didn't defend himself in the case and therefore lost on a 
>> default judgment.  I think there is a big difference between the 
>> scammers and the registrants who register the domains offered in this 
>> thread.
>> 
>> The person who is the registrant of cocaco1a.com <http://cocaco1a.com> 
>> is obviously not 'scamming' anyone into anything, as they are using 
>> parking pages.  They are not trying to pretend they are something they 
>> aren't, they are not running a banking scam, etc.  The scam would be 
>> coming from the legal side if one does appear.
>> 
>> With regard to cocaco1a.com <http://cocaco1a.com>, the only problem is 
>> the lack of verifiable contact info, which in all rationale is between 
>> the registrant and the registrar/registry (ie: none of my business).  
>> The implication that this domain is a bad-faith registration or for 
>> fraudulent purposes is itself nonsense.  However, and to the detriment 
>> of the entire system, if someone would seek UDRP resolutions then it is 
>> very easy to do if the contact info is incorrect in the first place.  It 
>> is no competition.
>> 
>> So, as this is a good example of things that go bump in the night, the 
>> entire thread is just that - an example.  We should in no way use this 
>> one instance as a benchmark for anything, as it shows nothing.
>> 
>> aloha,
>> Randy Glass
>> A at L
>> 
>......
>> -- 
>> -------------------------
>> AmericaAtLarge.org
>> RJPacific.com
>> DDMF.org
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RAA-WG mailing list
>> RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>> RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RAA-WG mailing list
>RAA-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations

======= 

'Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com