[NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
michele at blacknight.ie
Sun Dec 5 04:39:52 UTC 2010
Isn't that section of the RAA only applicable to the 2009 version?
If that is the case, are all registrars listed under the 2009 RAA?
Mr. Michele Neylon
Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
On 4 Dec 2010, at 23:14, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> [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
>> 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
>> 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:
>> Garth Bruen
>> gbruen at knujon.com
>> 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
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss