Farzaneh,
 
An entity registering a portfolio of at least 73 Domain Names, would in my view know what it is doing. And so part of the blame would fall under Caveat Emptor.
 
On the other hand the Registrar's behavior would strike as havy handed. And fraudulent, if not at least a proportion of funds would be returned. The problem of course is the recourse if two or more jurisdictions are involved.
 
So I do agree that we need to bake some form of recourse into this Policy, and that this would be clearly within scope (as otherwise would be silly, and worth dying in a ditch over).
 
el


--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired)
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
On Jul 2, 2026 at 18:22 +0200, farzaneh badii via Gnso-dnsabuse-pdp <gnso-dnsabuse-pdp@icann.org>, wrote:
 
Dear all, 

 
I am providing a real-world example with false positives, bulk suspension, sweeping in innocent registrants and the account was suspended as “high risk” following ADC-related action. We are not asking this PDP to develop a fully fledged complaint mechanisms. However, registrars should at least be required to provide a means for a Registered Name Holder to submit a complaint regarding an account suspension or other actions. It can just be a form. It can be just one sentence in the recommendation. 
 
[…]