Still more folk complaining about GoDaddy Transfer Policy Violations
http://www.oxadox.com/article/healthfood/2009-01-29/51115.html The issue of GoDaddy's ongoing violation of Inter-Registrar Transfer Consensus Policy has been brought to the attention of the ICANN Compliance Department -- but what action has been taken? ICANN Senior Management is aware of the issue -- but what action has been taken? The ALAC has been notified of the issue -- but what action have they taken? Question: What's the point in working hard to come up with appropriate consensus-based policies if ICANN routinely turns a blind eye to policy violations? ... and what's the point in working with the ALAC if they fail to bring these oft-repeated user concerns to the attention of the Board?
ALAC discussed what it could and would do on this and any other similar compliance matters at our last meeting (and please note the Board Liaison was part of this discussion so our direct mandated method of communication of our concerns to the Board is involved) and we are proceeding in the agreed direction (I'm sure Danny you will have listened to the recording and/or read the minutes and action items arising to confirm what action we are taking... The Action item specific to this is still pending but is being done by Alan at the moment so I'm sure he will brief you further as soon as possible... Further to these actions however it should also be noted that the matter of Registrar Compliance is being focused on as part of our Mexico meeting and in fact each RALO General Assembly will have the following item listed at staggered times to allow for the presence of appropriate ICANN staff in each of the GA's that run concurrently on the Tue ... Other ICANN Matters: a. Registrar/registry RAA non-compliance (with ICANN services) b. Outreach under new GNSO structure So Danny, thank you for the link I found it very interesting as we always need anecdotal evidence and specific cases to quite in our work, plus further information and compliance issues do need to be continually looked for and reported; and you seem well equiped to do that... but *please desist* from making claims and statements intended to show off your lack of trust, faith or belief in ICANN generally and the ALAC / At-Large structure we are working with specificalyy, that is based on incorrect, inaccurate or misleading statements; such as trying to indicate below that we are either ignoring this important issue or are doing nothing... That is FAR from the truth... CLO Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2009/1/30 Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>
http://www.oxadox.com/article/healthfood/2009-01-29/51115.html
The issue of GoDaddy's ongoing violation of Inter-Registrar Transfer Consensus Policy has been brought to the attention of the ICANN Compliance Department -- but what action has been taken?
ICANN Senior Management is aware of the issue -- but what action has been taken?
The ALAC has been notified of the issue -- but what action have they taken?
Question: What's the point in working hard to come up with appropriate consensus-based policies if ICANN routinely turns a blind eye to policy violations? ... and what's the point in working with the ALAC if they fail to bring these oft-repeated user concerns to the attention of the Board?
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Cheryl / Danny GoDaddy is the biggest ICANN registrar How likely is it that ICANN will take any action against them? What options are open to ICANN to take against them? The inter-registrar transfer policy isn't part of the RAA, is it? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Hi Michele,
From the RAA:
4.1 Registrar's Ongoing Obligation to Comply With New or Revised Specifications and Policies. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall comply with the terms of this Agreement on the schedule set forth in Subsection 4.4, with 4.1.1 new or revised specifications (including forms of agreement to which Registrar is a party) and policies established by ICANN as Consensus Policies in the manner described in Subsection 4.3, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy is a Consensus Policy -- see http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm Re: How likely is it that ICANN will take action against its biggest registrar? If people (such as the ALAC) remain silent and continue to tolerate the abuse, then ICANN will continue to do nothing. By the way, have you seen the latest breach notice? -- http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-bordes-04feb09-en.pdf It takes ICANN over a year to act even when registrars fail to pay their fees to ICANN.... and somehow ICANN expects us to believe that their compliance department can ramp up to meet the challenge of hundreds of new gTLDs while it can't even timely manage the obligations that it has at the moment. --- On Sun, 2/8/09, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Still more folk complaining about GoDaddy Transfer Policy Violations To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "dannyyounger@yahoo.com" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009, 8:39 AM Cheryl / Danny
GoDaddy is the biggest ICANN registrar
How likely is it that ICANN will take any action against them?
What options are open to ICANN to take against them?
The inter-registrar transfer policy isn't part of the RAA, is it?
Regards
Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Danny Younger wrote, On 30/1/09 01:25:
and what's the point in working with the ALAC if they fail to bring these oft-repeated user concerns to the attention of the Board?
Danny, I think the main answer here - before being one of ICANN or ALAC doing something - is to educate the customers/consumers that they have the option to spend their USD9.99/yr with another registrar. I would very much prefer the ALAC to spend time on policies, rather than address specific cases of dumb customers. I don't see the ALAC as a complaints dept. I also note most of the concerns against registrars are mostly for US-based ones. Maybe there are some factors exterior to ICANN, weak consumer protection laws for example, that allow US-based registrars to do things that others don't. I would very much welcome that consumer organizations come up with a comparative analysis of registrars, both in terms of contracts and services offered. This would certainly help consumers find their way around in the domain registration jungle. Patrick
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
I think the main answer here - before being one of ICANN or ALAC doing something - is to educate the customers/consumers that they have the option to spend their USD9.99/yr with another registrar.
This, of course, assumes that consumers are capable of making an informed decision. It is easy to compare "features", but impossible for consumers to shop based on ethics, compliance, or the likelihood that something 'unexpected' will happen.
I would very much prefer the ALAC to spend time on policies, rather than address specific cases of dumb customers. I don't see the ALAC as a complaints dept.
As has been said before, it is agreed that ALAC does not have the resources to act on individual complaints; but it does have a role ensuring that complaints are dealt with fairly and -- more importantly -- that pattens of abuse are identified. If all you want to do is churn policy, go join the GNSO. ALAC's mandate deliberately extends to *everything* about ICANN. Limiting ALAC to policy matters is an unacceptable abdication of responsibility. And... by the way... I take offense to the characterization of "dumb customers". Such arrogant elitism has no place within an organization charged with representing the world of Internet end-users.
I also note most of the concerns against registrars are mostly for US-based ones. Maybe there are some factors exterior to ICANN, weak consumer protection laws for example, that allow US-based registrars to do things that others don't.
Or maybe only the Americans are the only ones being watched?
I would very much welcome that consumer organizations come up with a comparative analysis of registrars, both in terms of contracts and services offered. This would certainly help consumers find their way around in the domain registration jungle.
Within ICANN, ALAC is *the* consumer protection organization, by definition. There is nobody else to delegate to. - Evan
Evan, Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 8/2
This, of course, assumes that consumers are capable of making an informed decision. It is easy to compare "features", but impossible for consumers to shop based on ethics, compliance, or the likelihood that something 'unexpected' will happen. Hence my suggestion to setup a bench mark to compare registrars. However, I think the ALAC has no standing in doing that, if only because domain name registration is often a small part of the service provided. Depending on the registrar, this could include DNS, web or e-mail hosting. And personnally, I would be very worried if an internal committee of ICANN would start ranking registrars. If all you want to do is churn policy, go join the GNSO. ALAC's mandate deliberately extends to *everything* about ICANN. Limiting ALAC to policy matters is an unacceptable abdication of responsibility. Indeed, GNSO is only for gTLD policy. There is much more to ICANN than just the gTLDs. The ALAC is however an advisory commitee to the ICANN board, not a consumer union. I am fine if the ALAC tells the board that consumers are unhappy. But the ALAC is not in a position to, say, launch a class action suit against a registrar. And... by the way... I take offense to the characterization of "dumb customers". Such arrogant elitism has no place within an organization charged with representing the world of Internet end-users. I am sorry I have offended you. I think it is not elitism to expect a consumer buying a service to read the contract and its related documents. If the consumer finds the other party violates part of the contract, he can of course sue them. Now of course there is an economic question; "should I start a legal action for a $10/year domain name ?" It might be more pragmatic to go to a competitor instead.
This being said, the gentleman hit by the GoDaddy policies is a professional domain name speculator, not just your average blog owner. Professionals are supposed to know what they are doing. The GoDaddy policy is very vague about the conditions that would allow it to object to a transfer. http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/legal_agreements/show_doc.asp?se=%2B&pageid=Do... It does not mention the specific issue of changes to whois information less than 60 days preventing a transfer, but the vagueness of the text may cover it. The main point is, I think, the imprecision of the contractual terms of GoDaddy. How far this is an ICANN issue and thus an ALAC issue, I do not know. Patrick
Hence my suggestion to setup a bench mark to compare registrars.
Oh, please, no. We already have far too much stuff on our plate that we're never going to do. All I want is for ICANN to require that registrars follow the rules in the contracts they've already signed. R's, John
I think the main answer here - before being one of ICANN or ALAC doing something - is to educate the customers/consumers that they have the option to spend their USD9.99/yr with another registrar.
If I were a sleazy registrant, I would think it was wonderful that my registrar made it impossible to find out anything about me, and charged low, low, prices because they didn't pay their ICANN bills. Assuming you agree that ALAC is supposed to represent the interest of all Internet users, and not just registrants, telling people to switch registrars isn't a solution at all. Accurate WHOIS and responses to abuse reports are consumer protection issues, so individual Internet users can tell who they're talking to and doing business with, and we have some chance of turning off domains operated by known criminals.
I also note most of the concerns against registrars are mostly for US-based ones.
Of course. That's because there are more registrars in the US than in the entire rest of the world. It's also because some registrars claim to be in the US even though they're really somewhere else, such as OnlineNIC which is really in China, South America Domains which is really in the BVI, and Belgiumdomains (the famous name taster) which is really in some hard to find offshore jurisdiction. Accredited registrars by country: 577 United States 146 Canada 23 Germany 19 China 17 India 15 France 14 Korea (South) 14 Australia 13 United Kingdom 13 Spain 10 Japan 9 Russian Federation 7 Israel 6 Sweden 6 Brazil 5 Netherlands 5 Italy 4 Turkey 4 Austria 2 Virgin Islands (British) 2 Ukraine 2 Switzerland 2 Singapore 2 Norway 2 New Zealand 2 Malaysia 2 Cayman Islands 2 Bahamas 1 United Arab Emirates 1 Thailand 1 Taiwan 1 South Africa 1 Senegal 1 Romania 1 Portugal 1 Poland 1 Philippines 1 Pakistan 1 Monaco 1 Mexico 1 Luxembourg 1 Lithuania 1 Liechtenstein 1 Latvia 1 Kuwait 1 Jordan 1 Ireland 1 Hungary 1 Hong Kong 1 Gibraltar 1 Finland 1 Denmark 1 Burundi 1 Barbados 1 Argentina 1 Anguilla R's, John
John excelent reply!!! I completelly agree with you, specially when you said Assuming you agree that ALAC is supposed to represent the interest of all > Internet users, and not just registrants, telling people to switch > registrars isn't a solution at all. Accurate WHOIS and responses to abuse > reports are consumer protection issues, so individual Internet users can > tell who they're talking to and doing business with, and we have some > chance of turning off domains operated by known criminals. kind regards Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423www.derechoytecnologia.com.arhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:32:35 +0000> From: johnl@iecc.com> To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Registrar violations, was Still more folk complaining about GoDaddy Transfer Policy Violations> > > I think the main answer here - before being one of ICANN or ALAC doing> > something - is to educate the customers/consumers that they have the> > option to spend their USD9.99/yr with another registrar.> > If I were a sleazy registrant, I would think it was wonderful that my > registrar made it impossible to find out anything about me, and charged > low, low, prices because they didn't pay their ICANN bills.> > Assuming you agree that ALAC is supposed to represent the interest of all > Internet users, and not just registrants, telling people to switch > registrars isn't a solution at all. Accurate WHOIS and responses to abuse > reports are consumer protection issues, so individual Internet users can > tell who they're talking to and doing business with, and we have some > chance of turning off domains operated by known criminals.> > > I also note most of the concerns against registrars are mostly for > > US-based ones.> > Of course. That's because there are more registrars in the US than in the > entire rest of the world. It's also because some registrars > claim to be in the US even though they're really somewhere else, such as > OnlineNIC which is really in China, South America Domains which is really > in the BVI, and Belgiumdomains (the famous name taster) which is really > in some hard to find offshore jurisdiction.> > Accredited registrars by country:> > 577 United States> 146 Canada> 23 Germany> 19 China> 17 India> 15 France> 14 Korea (South)> 14 Australia> 13 United Kingdom> 13 Spain> 10 Japan> 9 Russian Federation> 7 Israel> 6 Sweden> 6 Brazil> 5 Netherlands> 5 Italy> 4 Turkey> 4 Austria> 2 Virgin Islands (British)> 2 Ukraine> 2 Switzerland> 2 Singapore> 2 Norway> 2 New Zealand> 2 Malaysia> 2 Cayman Islands> 2 Bahamas> 1 United Arab Emirates> 1 Thailand> 1 Taiwan> 1 South Africa> 1 Senegal> 1 Romania> 1 Portugal> 1 Poland> 1 Philippines> 1 Pakistan> 1 Monaco> 1 Mexico> 1 Luxembourg> 1 Lithuania> 1 Liechtenstein> 1 Latvia> 1 Kuwait> 1 Jordan> 1 Ireland> 1 Hungary> 1 Hong Kong> 1 Gibraltar> 1 Finland> 1 Denmark> 1 Burundi> 1 Barbados> 1 Argentina> 1 Anguilla> > R's,> John> > _______________________________________________> At-Large mailing list> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _________________________________________________________________ Permanece actualizado con MSN Noticias. Clic aquí http://noticias.cl.msn.com/
I think that list of accredited registrars by country is out of date, as it lists 1 in Ireland - they sold their accreditation several months ago Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
I think that list of accredited registrars by country is out of date, as it lists 1 in Ireland - they sold their accreditation several months ago
Perhaps they forgot to tell ICANN. There's an interesting question for the compliance department. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
participants (7)
-
carlos aguirre -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Patrick Vande Walle