[At-Large] Godaddy & ICANN Compliance: Port 43 whois
derek at aa419.org
Tue Nov 7 09:46:11 UTC 2017
This is exactly the same games being played with other complainants in
the ITSec sector. Also the reason why this complaint was lodged on
behalf of numerous parties and in full public view.
It seems it may be appropriate to test the ICANN complaints procedure
soon if these games are not stopped promptly as it's undermines
negotiated stated policies. I have seen numerous unused IP addresses
Artists Against 419
On 2017-11-07 09:20 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>> An edited version of a post I made on the APWG. Certain parts have
>> been redacted to protect innocent victims. The rest is topical here.
>> Certain parties at Godaddy were copied on the original.
>> I'm not sure if here is anybody on list that can address this issue. I
>> have lodged an ICANN complaint on it, but this is extremely topical in
>> doing what we do, fighting fraud as this affects each of us. So I'll
>> I have reached out to folks in other communities fighting abuse. The
>> issue is global and complaints are sandbagged.
>> To show what a harmful effect this has:
> I have been trying to deal with both Godaddy and ICANN about GoDaddy's
> violation of the RAA requirements to provide port 43 access. The response
> from Godaddy is that you can go to the web site. ICANN's response is
> "However, please note that the registrar demonstrated to ICANN it was
> compliant with its Whois Service obligations at the time the complaint
> was received in accordance with Section 3.3.5 of the 2013 Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Additionally, please note, ICANN's authority
> is purely contractual, and limited to the RAA, the Registry Agreements
> (RA) and ICANNâ€™s Consensus Policies."
> What crap! I had provided the proof, but they ignore it.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large