I don't know if this is settling anything, but I see nothing in Garth's message that I can find disagreeable. Knujon is clearly not your typical consumer complaint. It's more of a watchdog body, that looks at things and reports instances of (what it perceives as) rule breaking. I don't expect registrars to appreciate Knujon's work, or for everyone to necessarily get along. Any consumer watchdog organisation worth following has a generally adversarial relationship with the industries it monitors through no fault of its own -- the objects of its scrutiny generally don't like being watched in that leve of detail. But I still have yet to see one shred of backup for any accusations that Knujon's research methods are faulty (I think "sloppy" was the term used). I've suggested to Garth that the lack of personal response to a complaint should not put a registrar on a bad-actor list -- what counts is whether the problems are resolved, not how much acknowledgement takes place. Having said that, lack of response *and* lack of action on the complaint IMO *do* suggest a bad actor and publication is certainly warranted. So... Michele and Volker say "send me the names and we'll check them out". Garth has indicated that some registrars already work with him to get reports before they go public. This sounds like violent agreement, but I suspect it isn't. Let's seem how things play from here now that each has a better understanding of the other's position. I would also suggest taking further conversation on this topic out of the NARALO list and into the greater At-Large forum. (For example, neither Michele nor Volker is North American...). That said, I still think that Volker ought to retract his accusation of sloppiness. He may not like Knujon's process, or the haste with which it goes public, that that does not at all constitute "sloppy", which is to call into question the accuracy of the research. Short of any proof of inaccuracy, such an accusations simply constitutes a personal attack that demean the accuser more than the "victim". And if you think about it, Volker, the more that registrars complain about Knujon (without evidence), the more credible its data is perceived. The only people complaining are those targeted in its publications. Garth, you may want to -- as standard policy -- automate the sending of your lists to each registrar's abuse mailbox in advance of going public -- don't wait for them to ask for it. Then rerun your tests in a month to see if they've been acted upon. After that I see no reason *not* to go completely public about those still unchanged. If the registrars still want to complain after that, too bad. You may not like the message, and you may not like the way it's delivered, but you still have yet to prove inaccuracy. - Evan