[NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Dec 7 16:42:44 UTC 2010


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 could've concluded a contract with entities whose business
models are cyber-enabled and powered entirely online and forgot to ask them
for an address record/label that embraced the pre-eminent communications
modality in the cyber 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 online 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 online 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 online at http://www.naralo.org
> > >------
>
>



More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list