Dear Volker, Dear Evan, Thank you Volker, who brought this to my attention. I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some issues as Volker tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally looking for a argument where there is none. <<A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of context, Garth.>> Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html). You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it. Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us. <<We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such accusations may amount to libellous[sic] interference.>> Volker, the document reads: "Registrars in Potential Breach with Relevant RAA Section" -POTENTIAL- Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry about their Port 43 WHOIS" Do you dispute this fact? Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) – Reporter commented that fee policies were not clear" We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response. <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>> Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part. We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about a previous conversation. <<Should we then be required to answer each and every mail requesting information that is already openly available?>> Well, yes. That's what a responsible company would do. It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told you about previously. I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy domains. <<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>> Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website. -Garth
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Fri, July 23, 2010 6:53 am To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, gbruen@knujon.com, evan@telly.org Cc: Michele@mail.key-systems.net, "Neylon:"@mail.key-systems.net:Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie>
Dear Garth, dear Evan,
thank you Michele, who brought this to my attention.
I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some issues as Garth tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally looking for a breach where there is none.
-Unresponsive Registrars
As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us to get us to stop asking: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of context, Garth. Key-Systems has never hidden its port 43 whois address. In fact, it is listed in _every_ whois query of any one of our domains:
Domain Name: KEY-SYSTEMS.NET Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
Yet Key-Systems is listed as registrar who may be in breach do to possible failure to provide access to a port 43 whois server. We called you on that and showed you that we do provide this service and also make no effort to hide that service. Instead of admitting your error and removing the false listing of Key-Systems from your report when I pointed this out and requested you update your "report", you insisted the report was still correct in all of its claims, even though you were proven wrong.
We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such accusations may amount to libellous interference. That is why we considered sueing Knujon, and not to get you to stop asking. Asking questions, based on good research is good and we support that, but publicly making erroneous claims of contractual breach based on the failure to do proper research and failure to correct them upon notification of the error is libel. KnuJon is trying to paint all registrars with the same brush, instead of singling out the actual bad actors, not realizing that this weakens the report as a whole.
In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is there anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like? I will always accept constructive criticism based on facts. In this case however, the listing of Key-Systems in that section of the KnuJon "report" was based on three things: a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net b) Our failure to answer an email request for that address. c) Failure of Knujon to make even one webbased whois check of any one of our domain names, which would have immediately revealed the address KnuJon was unable to find: whois.rrpproxy.net KnuJon is making false assumptions based on insufficient and inadequate research. That is what I call sloppy. To offer anything constructive for future reports: Look, instead of making assumptions. If you cannot find the whois address at the first place you consider, try to think how else this information may be reachable.
But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does not require them to tell anyone. Interesting point. We answer this question with every whois check done, as shown above. Should we then be required to answer each and every mail requesting information that is already openly available? Contractually, we are not. We are merely required to provide the service (which we do) in a way that it can be found and used (which we do). Accusing us of "not telling anyone" is ludicrous, as this services address is provided with any webbased whois check.
One thing I have learned from this debate is that KnuJon will always be the first to publicly accuse others of any perceived breach to further their interest, but will never admit to an own error.
As to the other point in the report, confusing prices, I still am not sure of what that means. Everywhere our customers can actually buy domain names from us we have a clear chart of prices available. If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.
--
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.key-systems.net/facebook www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.