Garth wrote: "the fact that they did manipulate their WHOIS record for such a long time is a problem. Also, that the Better Business Bureau could not locate the company to resolve disputes is troubling for the domain registrant customer." If ICANN is going to let companies like this call themselves "ICANN accredited registrars," then that accreditation doesn't mean much. In fact, it does more harm than good, since a company that shows obvious signs of being a bad actor can be ICANN accredited. -----Original Message-----
From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com> Sent: Jul 16, 2010 2:37 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Update on A Technology Company
Hello all,
The two complaints against A Technology Company made by us earlier this week have been technically fixed.
But the resolution raises more questions than it addressed. The fact that they were allowed to re-accredit well beyond the 15 day period of their initial breach notice is one and the timeline is interesting.
According to the termination notice sent by ICANN on 25 June 2010 (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-prakash-25jun10-en.pdf) a breach notice was previously sent on 29 April 2010. However, this breach notice is not posted.
Fifteen days after 29 April is 14 May.
According to the termination notice ICANN sent another breach notice 26 May 2010 specifically giving 10 June 2010 as the deadline for curing the breach. This notice is not posted either.
There are 11 days between the previous assumed deadline and the date of this second notice.
The termination letter was issued 25 June, 15 days after the second breach deadline, signaling that the accreditation would expire on 12 July 2010, 17 days after the date of the letter.
According to the compliance update on 13 July, one day after the expected termination date, it is announced that A Technology cured its breach on June 30, 13 days before the announcement.
So, it would seem A Technology was allowed to cure its breach 46 days after the initial breach deadline, or 20 days after the second breach deadline. In total A Technology was in breach for 61 days.
It does not seem like the timeframe of the RAA was followed here.
This is just the timeline issue, there are others.
ICANN was notified about A Technology’s failure to post their address by me on 20 June and their WHOIS manipulation issues on 23 June. According to Stacy A Technology was “told” to correct these issues ASAP. The WHOIS issue was a violation of their previous contract and the address posting was a violation of the current RAA. However, they were not issued a breach notice for either, they were “told” to correct them. It seems that this was only done because we pushed issue, or at least only became public because we brought it up.
This begs the question. How often are Registrars “told” to fix something without documentation?
While their WHOIS record is no longer being manipulated, the information posted in their WHOIS record now matches what is posted in the InterNIC directory (http://www.internic.org/registrars/registrar-53.html), we believe the posted address may in fact be a UPS mailbox. They have also posted another address on their website which appears to be a private residence and for obvious reasons wont post here. While they may have technically resolved our complaints, the fact that they did manipulate their WHOIS record for such a long time is a problem. Also, that the Better Business Bureau could not locate the company to resolve disputes is troubling for the domain registrant customer.
This case continues to be a mystery.
-Garth
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------