Hi Gentlemen & RPM Group: Cc Garth: Further to the conversation in the RPM Meeting of May 4th, thank you Phil for the engaging in / expanding the dialog on *CentralNic*; and their ability to be exempt from ICANN’s RAA Rules. I’d like to thank George Kirikos for his statement to Phil: *“I think Graham is talking about 3rd level dot-com domains (not ccTLDs). i.e. Landcruise .uk.com <http://landcruise.uk.com/>, vs. Landcruise.com”.* Yes George, I am indeed curious how: *“That "special rule" by CentralNic is not something blessed by or authorized by ICANN.” *became such an accepted racket by ICANN; and why ICANN’s Contractual Compliance never shut-them-down? Thanks also to Greg, our ICANN IPC President for this link from: *“ADR Forum's website: CentralNic is a second level domain registrant that sells third-level domains to users. * *Registration of a third level domain name in one of CentralNic’s second level domains requires agreement to CentralNic’s Dispute Resolution Policy. Prior to filing a CDRP, the complainant is required to attempt mediation by contacting CentralNic.* *The CDRP process is almost identical to the UDRP. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel <http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel>”* To all RPM Members: Why must a .COM Domain Name Registrant mediate with their Contributory Infringer, another RAA Subject, Domain Name Registrant? Ask yourselves reflectively, these questions of ~ *Third-Level Domain Names: at the ADR Forum. *http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel *[ WHY ? ] *Ordinarily, domain name dispute resolution policies do not apply to third-level domain names. A few second-level domain name registrants have decided to *[ e~VaED the ACPA ]* sell third-level domain names like a Registry* [ and allowed to place those accounts into / under the VeriSign, ICANN & NTIA’s Root Zone of .COM in the DNS! ] * and have established dispute resolution policies to deal with any resulting disputes. *[ which equates to Racketeering ! ]* WHOIS History shows: CentralNic’s uk.COM is a former; and long standing Domain Name Registrant of Network Solutions, under the ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” status .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, subject to the RAA. This was prior to their Cyber-Flight to CentralNic’s own TLD Registrar Solutions, domiciled at CentralNic’s London address, and yet again prior before their Third [3rd] Cyber-flight to Demys, yet again, another ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, where all are subjects to the RAA. Many of these observations or questions have been identified by another ICANN'er, Garth Bruen [Cc'd] in his book: *“**WHOIS Running the Internet: Protocol, Policy, and Privacy”* where reads will see that Garth eloquently dissects the problem. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mgmeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=centralnic+schreibe... Greg and Phil, let me be candid with you both. Now that You’re being *FUNDED BY* revenues in large measure by ICANN’s .COM Domain Name Registrants to go Globe-trotting, I vigorously encourage you to stop being the batmen [ soldier-servants] to CentralNic’s *“handful of pseudo-domain names”* [Quote from Domain Name Wire] and serve the needs of the .COM Registrant’s. Also, Philip Corwin, thanks for acknowledging Greg:* “Thanks for that link, Greg”* . Greg & Phil, I expect you both to take you’re ~ funded ~ leadership role’s seriously; and press ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic. Further, I expect you both to deploy you’re given powers within ICANN; and to successfully petition the United States Justice Department to ask ICANN Et Al to answer the “Questions Presented” in SCOTUS 14-1480, as linked. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdfFTOI... Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward. To the Members of this RPM Group, who are aware of this scam, it’s time to stop harbouring this racketeering scheme; and oblige ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic; and also to recognize beyond ICANN, that the cc.COMs are "*misleading"* and are a violation of established International Intellectual Property Treaties like WTO’s TRIPS. In closing, thanks again George for you’re help! Given you’re article Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract...> Jan 10, 2013 12:06 AM PDT, I’d appreciate having you share more of you’re knowledge & questions with the Group. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract... Thanks all, for reading this and engaging ICANN Et Al, to ensure that .COM Registrants ~ Rights Protections ~ are protected. Regards, Graham Schreiber.