Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
Dear Garth and Bob: Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP. ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter. We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. Sincerely, Stacy Burnette Director Contractual Compliance ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1(310) 301-3860 -----Original Message----- From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr@gmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com; evan@telly.org; Stacy Burnette Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not good behavior. It's very sad. --bob On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
Hello all,
To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates):
"13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation was renewed on 13 July 2010."
I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons:
1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16
The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents.
AND
2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and Port 43.
Trying to get the record returns one of these statements:
"Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp
From Port 43: "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] Results: Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system."
However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain, which means what? They are manipulating the search.
A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve consumer disputes!
This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, everything else is permissible.
I'm shocked.
-Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen gbruen@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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Knujon http://knujon.com http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
I am concerned about the ASAP date that was given to this company as a dateline for publishing a valid address. In my experience ASAP means whenever you want. I recommend that ICANN gives them and specific date, i.e. let's say...by tomorrow?. It just take a few minutes or less to update a web page. Eduardo Diaz ISOC-PR On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org>wrote:
Dear Garth and Bob:
Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP.
ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter.
We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/.
Sincerely,
Stacy Burnette Director Contractual Compliance ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1(310) 301-3860
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr@gmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com; evan@telly.org; Stacy Burnette Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not good behavior. It's very sad.
--bob
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
Hello all,
To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates):
"13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation was renewed on 13 July 2010."
I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons:
1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16
The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents.
AND
2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and Port 43.
Trying to get the record returns one of these statements:
"Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp
From Port 43: "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] Results: Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system."
However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain ,
which means what? They are manipulating the search.
A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve consumer disputes!
This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, everything else is permissible.
I'm shocked.
-Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen gbruen@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
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Knujon http://knujon.com http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
------ 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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
participants (2)
-
Eduardo Diaz -
Stacy Burnette