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, 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”

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+schreiber&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=centralnic%20schreiber&f=false 

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/pdfFTOIefnB82.pdf 

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  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_contracts_that_icann_oversees/

Thanks all, for reading this and engaging ICANN Et Al, to ensure that .COM Registrants ~ Rights Protections ~ are protected.

Regards,

Graham Schreiber.