- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [icann-ccg-ca] RE: RAA subsection 3.7.7.3, fraud and liability
by Beau Brendler June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Kristina wrote: "FWIW, the few US courts that have looked at this issue have taken the position that subdomains are beyond the scope of the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act." That's interesting. I will look for references as I would be interested to hear the explanation why. -----Original Message----- >From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> >Sent: Jun 10, 2010 3:53 PM >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: icann-ccg-ca(a)n4c.eu, ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [icann-ccg-ca] RE: [NA-Discuss] RAA subsection 3.7.7.3, fraud and liability > >Wendy: ICANN isn't imposing the liability. The relevant provision goes >to the circumstance under which the RNH accepts liability for the acts >of its licensee. Whether there is any liability in the first instance is >independent of this provision and not part of the RAA. > >3.7.7.3 of the RAA reads (and has since the original iteration), in >part: A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name >according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by >wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the >current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of >the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable >evidence of actionable harm. > >Beau: FWIW, the few US courts that have looked at this issue have taken >the position that subdomains are beyond the scope of the >AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It seems to me 3.7.7.3 >would apply (if at all and all other conditions satisfied) to the >registrant of the second-level name. > >K > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy >Seltzer >Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:43 PM >To: Beau Brendler >Cc: icann-ccg-ca(a)n4c.eu; ALAC Internal List; >na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] RAA subsection 3.7.7.3, fraud and liability > >I'd say this is an overextension of ICANN's mandate. Who is ICANN to >impose legal liability on registrants for uses of their domains (as >opposed to for breaches of the contract with the registrar/registry)? > >--Wendy > >Beau Brendler wrote: >> Regarding the draft advisory on RAA subsection 3.7.7.3 >[http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14ma >y10-en.pdf], which is on the at-large agenda for discussion in Brussels, >specifically the statement: >> >> "the Registered Name Holder shall accept liability for harm caused by >the wrongful use of the registered name unless the Registered Name >Holder promptly identifies the licensee to a party that has provided the >Registered Name Holder with reasonable evidence of actionable harm." >> >> Does this apply to subdomains? For instance, in >> http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/06/02/three-charged-in-xp-antispywa >> re-2010-fraud-fbi-says-100m-lost/ >> >> it's noted that bsa.safetydownload.com was a vector for serious >malware downloads that cost consumers around the world more than $100 >million. The domain is still up and functioning, though you will >probably have to turn off firewalls to access it, which I wouldn't >recommend. >> >> What is the chain of liability now and under 3.7.7.3? The registrant, >OS Portfolio Holdings, a domainer? The registrar, Bear Trap Domains >(which is/was ICANN accredited, but now appears to be taken over by >Oversee.net [http://www.oversee.net/] which also now happens to own OS >Portfolio? Is this a hijacked subdomain with no trail? >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis >> ts.icann.org >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> >> > > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >phone: +1.914.374.0613 >Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

RAA subsection 3.7.7.3, fraud and liability
by Beau Brendler June 10, 2010

June 10, 2010

Regarding the draft advisory on RAA subsection 3.7.7.3 [http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-…] which is on the at-large agenda for discussion in Brussels, specifically the statement: "the Registered Name Holder shall accept liability for harm caused by the wrongful use of the registered name unless the Registered Name Holder promptly identifies the licensee to a party that has provided the Registered Name Holder with reasonable evidence of actionable harm." Does this apply to subdomains? For instance, in http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/06/02/three-charged-in-xp-antispyware-20… it's noted that bsa.safetydownload.com was a vector for serious malware downloads that cost consumers around the world more than $100 million. The domain is still up and functioning, though you will probably have to turn off firewalls to access it, which I wouldn't recommend. What is the chain of liability now and under 3.7.7.3? The registrant, OS Portfolio Holdings, a domainer? The registrar, Bear Trap Domains (which is/was ICANN accredited, but now appears to be taken over by Oversee.net [http://www.oversee.net/] which also now happens to own OS Portfolio? Is this a hijacked subdomain with no trail?

5 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

It's only going to get worse > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 1:35 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net, staff(a)atlarge.icann.org, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > On 9 June 2010 12:25, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > Sure > Actually, Garth, I had you in mind to advance as the At-Large person > on that committee. I can't think of a better person to hold the rest > of 'em accountable with facts to back up your POV. > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

Sure > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call > From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 12:21 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, > matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org > Cc: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > And I may be filling in for Evan who could be in transit at the time of the call -- but in either case, I think he and I would be interested in Garth giving a presentation of 5-10 minutes on this latest report on WHOIS, especially considering the at-large needs to name a representative to an oversight panel who will need to be able to present all sides of the issue. > > Garth, can do? > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >Sent: Jun 9, 2010 10:20 AM > >To: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org > >Cc: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call > > > >Thanks for the quick answer > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: Re: NARALO Call > >> From: Matthias Langenegger <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> > >> Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 10:08 am > >> To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff > >> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > >> Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > >> <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >> Dear Garth, > >> > >> The next NARALO call is scheduled on Monday, June 14th at 1900 UTC. The > >> draft agenda will soon be published under > >> https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_june_2010 > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> > >> -- > >> Matthias Langenegger > >> Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs > >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >> > >> Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org > >> Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 > >> Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 > >> Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger > >> > >> > >> > >> On 09/06/2010 16:03, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Do we have a call before Brussels? > >> > > >> > > >> >

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call
by Beau Brendler June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

And I may be filling in for Evan who could be in transit at the time of the call -- but in either case, I think he and I would be interested in Garth giving a presentation of 5-10 minutes on this latest report on WHOIS, especially considering the at-large needs to name a representative to an oversight panel who will need to be able to present all sides of the issue. Garth, can do? -----Original Message----- >From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Jun 9, 2010 10:20 AM >To: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >Cc: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call > >Thanks for the quick answer > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: NARALO Call >> From: Matthias Langenegger <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> >> Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 10:08 am >> To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff >> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" >> <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> Dear Garth, >> >> The next NARALO call is scheduled on Monday, June 14th at 1900 UTC. The >> draft agenda will soon be published under >> https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_june_2010 >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Matthias Langenegger >> Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >> Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >> Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >> Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >> >> >> >> On 09/06/2010 16:03, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: >> >> > Do we have a call before Brussels? >> > >> > >> >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Call
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

Thanks for the quick answer > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: NARALO Call > From: Matthias Langenegger <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 10:08 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff > <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Dear Garth, > > The next NARALO call is scheduled on Monday, June 14th at 1900 UTC. The > draft agenda will soon be published under > https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_june_2010 > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Matthias Langenegger > Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org > Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 > Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 > Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger > > > > On 09/06/2010 16:03, "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > Do we have a call before Brussels? > > > > > >

1 0

NARALO Call
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

Do we have a call before Brussels?

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 2
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

Send memo to complaince this morning, no word yet, will let you know. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 2 > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date: Mon, June 07, 2010 1:14 pm > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Garth: > This is very good work indeed. Thanks for sharing. I would love to know > the feedback from ICANN Compliance soonest. If this was just an email > notifying them of violations, I would urge you to make a formal complaint so > the WHOIS WG can track the response. > > Kind regards, > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > wrote: > > > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Who is Blocking WHOIS? (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:26:38 -0700 > > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > > alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Who is Blocking WHOIS? > > Message-ID: > > < > > 20100607092638.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.33b19c4cde.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Dear At-Large and ALAC, > > > > On April 16 ICANN issued a breach notice to Turkish Registrar Alantron > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-acir-16apr10-en.pdf) > > for not consistently providing access to its WHOIS database via Port 43, > > a command-line query location that all Registrars are required to supply > > under conditions of their contract with ICANN > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) under > > section 3.3.1. Four days later they issued a breach to Internet Group do > > Brazil for the same problem > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malinardi-02apr10-en.pdf > > ). > > WHOIS is a critical resource that makes the Internet function the way it > > is expected to. It is also at tool of consumer trust and investigation. > > Without Port 43 access ICANN?s WDPRS compliance system does not work. > > The WHOIS record, as we all know, is a massive fraud with illicit > > parties filling records with bogus information and hiding behind > > anonymity. Fake WHOIS records are typically initiated by the registrant > > and only technically become the Registrar?s problem after a complaint > > is filed. The issue of blocking access to the WHOIS record is strictly > > the province of the Registrar. > > > > Coincidentally, while parties unknown to us filed complaints against > > Alantron and Internet Group do Brazil, KnujOn was conducting its own > > far-reaching audit of Port 43. For a period 71 days KnujOn tested the > > Port 43 WHOIS accessibility of each unique Registrar, we did not test > > multiple accreditations held by the same companies and only tested once > > per day to avoid being blacklisted. We also tested at different times of > > the day each time to avoid possible regular maintenance periods and > > discarded results if the Registrar?s service only failed once in > > during the study period. The full results, and ongoing testing of Port > > 43 access, are posted at: http://www.knujon.com/whoisblockingwhois.html > > > > In addition to testing access, we also tested how easy it was to find > > the Port 43 location of each Registrar. In most cases the Port 43 is > > logically located at WHOIS.[REGISTRARDOMAIN].[TLD], for example > > ?whois.networksolutions.com? for NetworkSolutions. Sometimes it is > > located at a different domain as in the case of Xin Net, the Port 43 is > > hosted at whois.paycenter.com.cn. In most cases we were able to find > > alternate Registrar WHOIS locations easily but for scores of them we had > > to ask the Registrar. A handful quickly responded with the correct > > location, but most never responded, and in a few cases our email was > > rejected from the ICANN-listed Registrar contact email. A small minority > > wanted to know why we were asking, but we logged this as non-response > > since the RAA does allow for Registrar discrimination in the access to > > WHOIS. > > > > Marcaria.com International, Inc. was the worst, their Port 43 WHOIS > > worked at beginning of test period and stopped responding on March 30 > > for a total of 14 successful days out of 71. That Darn Name, Inc., which > > became intrustdomains.com during the test period, had serious regular > > outages only responding a total of 38 days, slightly more than a 50% > > success rate. South America Domains Ltd. dba namefrog.com also started > > off OK but ceased responding after 46 days on May 10. > > > > OnlineNIC had the worst record in terms of consistency, failing 25 > > times, intermittently during the study period making their reliability > > about 65%. OnLineNic was in fact worse during the study period than > > Alantron. In addition to OnlineNIC being worse than Alantron during this > > period, World Biz Domains had the exact same Port 43 record responding > > only 79% of the time. > > > > Netfirms, Inc. failed 12 times, Freeparking Domain Registrars, Inc. 9 > > times. Good Luck Internet Services, Hebei Guoji Maoyi, Jetpack Domains, > > Inc., United Domain Registry, Inc. all failed on 8 days. NetraCorp LLC > > ,NamesBeyond7, and Web Commerce Communications failed 7 times. GKG.NET, > > INC. and Netpia.com, Inc. failed 4 times. 3 failures for Paknic. > > Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc., Galcomm, Inc. Guangzhou Ming Yang, > > Internet Invest, Moniker, Nordreg AB, Visesh Infotecnics Ltd., SiteName > > Ltd. and Regtime all filed twice. > > > > All Internet companies have technical issues. Even Google and Microsoft > > do. Much more troubling were the 57 Registrars who would not disclose > > their Port 43 location to us: 21Company, Hu Yi Global, Abansys, 1st > > Antagus Internet, AOL LLC, Aruba SpA, Aust Domains, Brights Consulting, > > chinagov.cn, China Springboard, Cronon AG Berlin, AllGlobalNames, > > VocalSpace, Digitrad France, Samjung Data Service, Netdorm, French > > Connexion, Domain Jamboree, Spirit Telecom, Domain Monkeys, > > Webagentur.at, DomainRegistry.com Inc, DomainSpa, Ledl.net, DotArai, Gee > > Whiz Domains, Hetzner Online, Digirati Informatica, Hostway Services, ID > > Genesis, Instra Corporation, Interdomain, Intermedia.NET, InterNetworX > > Ltd, Internet Solutions, FBS Inc, iWelt AG, Key-Systems, Launchpad, Inc, > > Advantage Interactive, Add2Net Inc, Planete Marseille, Melbourne IT DBS, > > M. G. Infocom, Nameshield, New Great Domains, GMO Internet, Porting > > Access, AB RIKTAD, Sedo.com, Simply Named, Domain Services Rotterdam BV, > > UK2 Group, HooYoo (US), Verelink, Web Business, and Xiamen ChinaSource. > > > > Our emails to Internet Group do Brasil and Black Ice Domains, Inc. were > > rejected. For each we used the contact email located in the ICANN > > Registrar directory. Secura GmbH would not disclose the Port 43 location > > and asked us why we wanted to know. Humeia Corporation would not > > disclose the Port 43 location and told us to use the InterNIC WHOIS > > lookup. Domainfactory GmbH said they were not an ICANN-accredited > > Registrar and thus not required to have a public WHOIS. However they are > > listed as an accredited Registrar by ICANN and sell gTLD domains on > > their website. We are requesting ICANN clarification on this issue. > > > > All of this information has been forwarded to ICANN compliance and we > > hope it can be resolved quickly. This is merely one section of a much > > large report we will be publishing soon. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 2 > > ***************************************** > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 2
by Carlton Samuels June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

Garth: This is very good work indeed. Thanks for sharing. I would love to know the feedback from ICANN Compliance soonest. If this was just an email notifying them of violations, I would urge you to make a formal complaint so the WHOIS WG can track the response. Kind regards, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Who is Blocking WHOIS? (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:26:38 -0700 > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Who is Blocking WHOIS? > Message-ID: > < > 20100607092638.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.33b19c4cde.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear At-Large and ALAC, > > On April 16 ICANN issued a breach notice to Turkish Registrar Alantron > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-acir-16apr10-en.pdf) > for not consistently providing access to its WHOIS database via Port 43, > a command-line query location that all Registrars are required to supply > under conditions of their contract with ICANN > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) under > section 3.3.1. Four days later they issued a breach to Internet Group do > Brazil for the same problem > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malinardi-02apr10-en.pdf > ). > WHOIS is a critical resource that makes the Internet function the way it > is expected to. It is also at tool of consumer trust and investigation. > Without Port 43 access ICANN?s WDPRS compliance system does not work. > The WHOIS record, as we all know, is a massive fraud with illicit > parties filling records with bogus information and hiding behind > anonymity. Fake WHOIS records are typically initiated by the registrant > and only technically become the Registrar?s problem after a complaint > is filed. The issue of blocking access to the WHOIS record is strictly > the province of the Registrar. > > Coincidentally, while parties unknown to us filed complaints against > Alantron and Internet Group do Brazil, KnujOn was conducting its own > far-reaching audit of Port 43. For a period 71 days KnujOn tested the > Port 43 WHOIS accessibility of each unique Registrar, we did not test > multiple accreditations held by the same companies and only tested once > per day to avoid being blacklisted. We also tested at different times of > the day each time to avoid possible regular maintenance periods and > discarded results if the Registrar?s service only failed once in > during the study period. The full results, and ongoing testing of Port > 43 access, are posted at: http://www.knujon.com/whoisblockingwhois.html > > In addition to testing access, we also tested how easy it was to find > the Port 43 location of each Registrar. In most cases the Port 43 is > logically located at WHOIS.[REGISTRARDOMAIN].[TLD], for example > ?whois.networksolutions.com? for NetworkSolutions. Sometimes it is > located at a different domain as in the case of Xin Net, the Port 43 is > hosted at whois.paycenter.com.cn. In most cases we were able to find > alternate Registrar WHOIS locations easily but for scores of them we had > to ask the Registrar. A handful quickly responded with the correct > location, but most never responded, and in a few cases our email was > rejected from the ICANN-listed Registrar contact email. A small minority > wanted to know why we were asking, but we logged this as non-response > since the RAA does allow for Registrar discrimination in the access to > WHOIS. > > Marcaria.com International, Inc. was the worst, their Port 43 WHOIS > worked at beginning of test period and stopped responding on March 30 > for a total of 14 successful days out of 71. That Darn Name, Inc., which > became intrustdomains.com during the test period, had serious regular > outages only responding a total of 38 days, slightly more than a 50% > success rate. South America Domains Ltd. dba namefrog.com also started > off OK but ceased responding after 46 days on May 10. > > OnlineNIC had the worst record in terms of consistency, failing 25 > times, intermittently during the study period making their reliability > about 65%. OnLineNic was in fact worse during the study period than > Alantron. In addition to OnlineNIC being worse than Alantron during this > period, World Biz Domains had the exact same Port 43 record responding > only 79% of the time. > > Netfirms, Inc. failed 12 times, Freeparking Domain Registrars, Inc. 9 > times. Good Luck Internet Services, Hebei Guoji Maoyi, Jetpack Domains, > Inc., United Domain Registry, Inc. all failed on 8 days. NetraCorp LLC > ,NamesBeyond7, and Web Commerce Communications failed 7 times. GKG.NET, > INC. and Netpia.com, Inc. failed 4 times. 3 failures for Paknic. > Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc., Galcomm, Inc. Guangzhou Ming Yang, > Internet Invest, Moniker, Nordreg AB, Visesh Infotecnics Ltd., SiteName > Ltd. and Regtime all filed twice. > > All Internet companies have technical issues. Even Google and Microsoft > do. Much more troubling were the 57 Registrars who would not disclose > their Port 43 location to us: 21Company, Hu Yi Global, Abansys, 1st > Antagus Internet, AOL LLC, Aruba SpA, Aust Domains, Brights Consulting, > chinagov.cn, China Springboard, Cronon AG Berlin, AllGlobalNames, > VocalSpace, Digitrad France, Samjung Data Service, Netdorm, French > Connexion, Domain Jamboree, Spirit Telecom, Domain Monkeys, > Webagentur.at, DomainRegistry.com Inc, DomainSpa, Ledl.net, DotArai, Gee > Whiz Domains, Hetzner Online, Digirati Informatica, Hostway Services, ID > Genesis, Instra Corporation, Interdomain, Intermedia.NET, InterNetworX > Ltd, Internet Solutions, FBS Inc, iWelt AG, Key-Systems, Launchpad, Inc, > Advantage Interactive, Add2Net Inc, Planete Marseille, Melbourne IT DBS, > M. G. Infocom, Nameshield, New Great Domains, GMO Internet, Porting > Access, AB RIKTAD, Sedo.com, Simply Named, Domain Services Rotterdam BV, > UK2 Group, HooYoo (US), Verelink, Web Business, and Xiamen ChinaSource. > > Our emails to Internet Group do Brasil and Black Ice Domains, Inc. were > rejected. For each we used the contact email located in the ICANN > Registrar directory. Secura GmbH would not disclose the Port 43 location > and asked us why we wanted to know. Humeia Corporation would not > disclose the Port 43 location and told us to use the InterNIC WHOIS > lookup. Domainfactory GmbH said they were not an ICANN-accredited > Registrar and thus not required to have a public WHOIS. However they are > listed as an accredited Registrar by ICANN and sell gTLD domains on > their website. We are requesting ICANN clarification on this issue. > > All of this information has been forwarded to ICANN compliance and we > hope it can be resolved quickly. This is merely one section of a much > large report we will be publishing soon. > > -Garth > > > ------------------------------------- > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 44, Issue 2 > ***************************************** >

1 0

Who is Blocking WHOIS?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn June 7, 2010

June 7, 2010

Dear At-Large and ALAC, On April 16 ICANN issued a breach notice to Turkish Registrar Alantron (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-acir-16apr10-en.pdf) for not consistently providing access to its WHOIS database via Port 43, a command-line query location that all Registrars are required to supply under conditions of their contract with ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) under section 3.3.1. Four days later they issued a breach to Internet Group do Brazil for the same problem (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malinardi-02apr10-en.pdf) WHOIS is a critical resource that makes the Internet function the way it is expected to. It is also at tool of consumer trust and investigation. Without Port 43 access ICANN’s WDPRS compliance system does not work. The WHOIS record, as we all know, is a massive fraud with illicit parties filling records with bogus information and hiding behind anonymity. Fake WHOIS records are typically initiated by the registrant and only technically become the Registrar’s problem after a complaint is filed. The issue of blocking access to the WHOIS record is strictly the province of the Registrar. Coincidentally, while parties unknown to us filed complaints against Alantron and Internet Group do Brazil, KnujOn was conducting its own far-reaching audit of Port 43. For a period 71 days KnujOn tested the Port 43 WHOIS accessibility of each unique Registrar, we did not test multiple accreditations held by the same companies and only tested once per day to avoid being blacklisted. We also tested at different times of the day each time to avoid possible regular maintenance periods and discarded results if the Registrar’s service only failed once in during the study period. The full results, and ongoing testing of Port 43 access, are posted at: http://www.knujon.com/whoisblockingwhois.html In addition to testing access, we also tested how easy it was to find the Port 43 location of each Registrar. In most cases the Port 43 is logically located at WHOIS.[REGISTRARDOMAIN].[TLD], for example “whois.networksolutions.com” for NetworkSolutions. Sometimes it is located at a different domain as in the case of Xin Net, the Port 43 is hosted at whois.paycenter.com.cn. In most cases we were able to find alternate Registrar WHOIS locations easily but for scores of them we had to ask the Registrar. A handful quickly responded with the correct location, but most never responded, and in a few cases our email was rejected from the ICANN-listed Registrar contact email. A small minority wanted to know why we were asking, but we logged this as non-response since the RAA does allow for Registrar discrimination in the access to WHOIS. Marcaria.com International, Inc. was the worst, their Port 43 WHOIS worked at beginning of test period and stopped responding on March 30 for a total of 14 successful days out of 71. That Darn Name, Inc., which became intrustdomains.com during the test period, had serious regular outages only responding a total of 38 days, slightly more than a 50% success rate. South America Domains Ltd. dba namefrog.com also started off OK but ceased responding after 46 days on May 10. OnlineNIC had the worst record in terms of consistency, failing 25 times, intermittently during the study period making their reliability about 65%. OnLineNic was in fact worse during the study period than Alantron. In addition to OnlineNIC being worse than Alantron during this period, World Biz Domains had the exact same Port 43 record responding only 79% of the time. Netfirms, Inc. failed 12 times, Freeparking Domain Registrars, Inc. 9 times. Good Luck Internet Services, Hebei Guoji Maoyi, Jetpack Domains, Inc., United Domain Registry, Inc. all failed on 8 days. NetraCorp LLC ,NamesBeyond7, and Web Commerce Communications failed 7 times. GKG.NET, INC. and Netpia.com, Inc. failed 4 times. 3 failures for Paknic. Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc., Galcomm, Inc. Guangzhou Ming Yang, Internet Invest, Moniker, Nordreg AB, Visesh Infotecnics Ltd., SiteName Ltd. and Regtime all filed twice. All Internet companies have technical issues. Even Google and Microsoft do. Much more troubling were the 57 Registrars who would not disclose their Port 43 location to us: 21Company, Hu Yi Global, Abansys, 1st Antagus Internet, AOL LLC, Aruba SpA, Aust Domains, Brights Consulting, chinagov.cn, China Springboard, Cronon AG Berlin, AllGlobalNames, VocalSpace, Digitrad France, Samjung Data Service, Netdorm, French Connexion, Domain Jamboree, Spirit Telecom, Domain Monkeys, Webagentur.at, DomainRegistry.com Inc, DomainSpa, Ledl.net, DotArai, Gee Whiz Domains, Hetzner Online, Digirati Informatica, Hostway Services, ID Genesis, Instra Corporation, Interdomain, Intermedia.NET, InterNetworX Ltd, Internet Solutions, FBS Inc, iWelt AG, Key-Systems, Launchpad, Inc, Advantage Interactive, Add2Net Inc, Planete Marseille, Melbourne IT DBS, M. G. Infocom, Nameshield, New Great Domains, GMO Internet, Porting Access, AB RIKTAD, Sedo.com, Simply Named, Domain Services Rotterdam BV, UK2 Group, HooYoo (US), Verelink, Web Business, and Xiamen ChinaSource. Our emails to Internet Group do Brasil and Black Ice Domains, Inc. were rejected. For each we used the contact email located in the ICANN Registrar directory. Secura GmbH would not disclose the Port 43 location and asked us why we wanted to know. Humeia Corporation would not disclose the Port 43 location and told us to use the InterNIC WHOIS lookup. Domainfactory GmbH said they were not an ICANN-accredited Registrar and thus not required to have a public WHOIS. However they are listed as an accredited Registrar by ICANN and sell gTLD domains on their website. We are requesting ICANN clarification on this issue. All of this information has been forwarded to ICANN compliance and we hope it can be resolved quickly. This is merely one section of a much large report we will be publishing soon. -Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)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

1 0