[At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks

Mon Jul 7 10:59:57 UTC 2014

Lianna

Registrars do not have the leeway in the 2013 contract to hide contact email addresses from public view. Also switching the email address around would effectively make the registrar the registrant in terms of domain control which would impede the registrant's ability to move their domain should they choose to do so.

Regards

Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Lianna Galstyan
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 10:17 AM
To: Kerry Brown
Cc: ICANN ALAC list; Alan Greenberg; ICANN At-Large list
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks

This is so true! As a registrar in ccTLD I faced so many suchlike cases when a webcompany register the domain in their name and then disappear. Or a registrant provides a bogus email address not to be targeted by spammers.

In the first case it's necessary to improve the registrants' literacy. As Holly told, here the resellers, registrars, even ALSs, the Internet Societies can have their contribution. This is the matter of education.

In the second situation the registrars can give an option for  registrants to hide the contact email address from public view yet keep the up-to-date email address for notifications by them [registrar]. Some percentage of those registrants who feel unprotected could provide correct email address if they know that it won't be available publicly.

Lianna

On Mon, July 7, 2014 4:41 am, Kerry Brown wrote:
> I can speak from the end user point of view on this issue. As a 
> consultant to small businesses I have seen several clients suffer 
> business hardship because of this issue (invalid contact email). It is 
> not uncommon for a small business owner to not want to deal with "the 
> internet". They hire someone to get them "the internet". This usually 
> means a domain, a web site, email, etc. Someone sells them a package 
> that includes all this. Often the contact email will be the person 
> that sells them the package. Some of these resellers are unscrupulous, 
> some are just incompetent, some for whatever reason leave the 
> business. The domain may not even be registered in the small business 
> name but in the name of the reseller who has disappeared. When the 
> domain goes dark the business loses email, their website, and possibly 
> more. By the time the small business owner contacts someone like me to 
> fix their internet a few weeks to a month may have gone by. Small 
> business owners are busy running th e day to day things and thought 
> they had "the internet" covered, after all they have been paying 
> someone to deal with it. By the time they figure out they don't have 
> someone to deal with it and find someone who will they may have lost 
> the domain. There is almost aways a charge from the registrar to 
> reinstate the domain. They have not had email or a web site for long 
> enough that it has cost them business. They end up with a very sour 
> taste for "the internet" and the people that "run" it. They equate 
> internet governance with the people that run the internet. They have 
> no idea how things happen so they they are on "the internet". They 
> mostly think of Al Gore when they even think about how the internet 
> works. We who have built this ecosystem have not built it for people 
> that are not intimately involved in it. It is up to us to fix it. We can't simply blame registrants.
>
> Kerry Brown
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan 
> Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:42 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg
> Cc: ICANN ALAC list; ICANN At-Large list
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by 
> email checks
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> As I said in my earlier message, if this is an implementation issue -- 
> such as too short a wait time or other matters of mechanics -- it can 
> be easily fixed. The policy goal behind the action remains sound.
>
> The method by with which the matter has been brought to the rest of 
> the ICANN community, along with the accompanying sense of alarm, 
> indicates a broader and opportunistic agenda. (ie, the consistent 
> attachment of references to demands from "law enforfcement").
>
> Those who have been running to the media and ICANN senior staff on the 
> issue seem to have little interest in the very real nuances you 
> describe, because it couldn't then be over-dramatized.
>
> - Evan
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org