I have just been contacted by the former registrant of fucked.nyc. He registered it via namecheap.com on March 3 2015 and renewed it earlier this week. On Feb 18 2017 he received a msg from Neustar informing him that it had been found non-compliant with the "Seven Word Policy" and deleted. Neustar advised him to contact his registrar for any refunds they might care to make. He contacted NameCheap who essentially said "Forgettaboutit'", despite him pointing out that at no time had he been notified about, or agreed to be bound by, any such policy. Here is NameCheap's response: *Recently, you contacted our Live Chat support regarding deletion offucked.nyc <http://fucked.nyc/>. Feel free to use chat ID XQR-359-35382 for reference.We wanted to let you know, that we have forwarded a suggestion about special notices for .NYC domains to the corresponding team.We are really sorry that you faced such a situation and our replies were not so helpful. Different Registry companies can have different policies in regards of registration their domains and they usually reserve a right to change their requirements or delete domains which do not meet them.This does not happen often, still it is not possible to keep customers informed about all the Registry policies or their changes on a contant manner, to our regret.The amount you paid for the domain purchase was used to register/renew the domain at the .NYC Registry. However, the Registry still can delete domains without any refund if they do not meet their requirements. We are working on improving our performance and hopefully special messages on the site can help to avoid such situations in future.If you have questions or require assistance, feel free to contact us at any time.* The registrant did some further research and surmised that Neustar's vigilance could well be due to my Feb 6 letter <http://isoc-ny.org/misc/2017-02-06_isoc-ny_dotnyc.pdf> pointing out they were asleep at the wheel. It appeared to him the relevant page <http://www.ownit.nyc/restricted-reserved> had been hurriedly updated. Since, apparently he has other domains that might also be considered variants on the 7 words, he got back on to Neustar for some clarification, demanded to see a list. 'Guy' at Neustar support informed him that nothing of the like existed - that it was decided on case by case basis - and to add insult to injury sany deleted restricted names might, as policies change, be released and sold to the highest bidder without any recourse for the original registrant. Thus he writes *I have concluded that all of my .nyc domain names (more than 20) were registered without binding terms or a policy of any kind on behalf of Namecheap or Neustar / ownit.nyc <http://ownit.nyc/>, and I suspect that this is a case for a large percentage of sold .nyc domains. Yet my domain name was seized for a breach of policy, a policy I was never introduced to nor agreed to. If any of my other names are added to the list, they can seize it at any time, despite the fact that I've owned them for 2 years now.* *The greatest ethical concern I have is that an entity operating in this way reserves the right to put a domain name on the reserved/restricted list at any point in time, even if it was already sold and owned for 2 years. I was informed by "Guy" at Neustar support that there is a possibility reserved/restricted names will be released in the future, however they are released back to the public (they go back up for sale), not to the original owner. I have many .nyc domain names that appear as variations according to their list.* *Where is the oversight? Who is to prevent Neustar from seizing a domain name for a period of time, then conveniently releasing it later only to buy it themselves using an alias or through a third party?* <snip> *It just doesn't seem right. If Neustar was unable to properly inform name holders on policy creations, changes, and updates in the past 5 years on city tax dollars, I don't think they should operate for another second. It shouldn't take a committee to generate a "no", I think their shady track record in the past 5 years speaks for itself. And this being New York City, we deserve better.* I've responded to him, noting that 7 word policy is in the City's .nyc contract (appears to have been published April 1 2015, and the .nyc Acceptable Use Policy (which doesn't mention that policy but says they can delete at will) has been public since July 2014. Caveat emptor. I noted that Neustar is obligated to file copies of Registrar Registry Agreements with the City, and he could FOIL it to see if NameCheap had met their obligations. I also opined that, in the unlikely event Neustar were to resell a previously deleted name, they would be asking for trouble, However I think he rightfully raises the wider issue of the right of registrants to be properly informed of restrictive gTLD policies before they put their money on the line. Is there something like that in existing policy? And also, to possibly the wider amusement of schoolboys etc, maybe ICANN or somebody should perhaps maintain a definitive reference of unacceptable variants of the 7 words. joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
This does not surprise me On 2/20/17 6:10 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have just been contacted by the former registrant of fucked.nyc <http://fucked.nyc>.
He registered it via namecheap.com <http://namecheap.com> on March 3 2015 and renewed it earlier this week.
On Feb 18 2017 he received a msg from Neustar informing him that it had been found non-compliant with the "Seven Word Policy" and deleted. Neustar advised him to contact his registrar for any refunds they might care to make.
He contacted NameCheap who essentially said "Forgettaboutit'", despite him pointing out that at no time had he been notified about, or agreed to be bound by, any such policy.
Here is NameCheap's response:
/Recently, you contacted our Live Chat support regarding deletion offucked.nyc <http://fucked.nyc/>. Feel free to use chat ID XQR-359-35382 for reference. We wanted to let you know, that we have forwarded a suggestion about special notices for .NYC domains to the corresponding team. We are really sorry that you faced such a situation and our replies were not so helpful. Different Registry companies can have different policies in regards of registration their domains and they usually reserve a right to change their requirements or delete domains which do not meet them. This does not happen often, still it is not possible to keep customers informed about all the Registry policies or their changes on a contant manner, to our regret. The amount you paid for the domain purchase was used to register/renew the domain at the .NYC Registry. However, the Registry still can delete domains without any refund if they do not meet their requirements. We are working on improving our performance and hopefully special messages on the site can help to avoid such situations in future. If you have questions or require assistance, feel free to contact us at any time./
The registrant did some further research and surmised that Neustar's vigilance could well be due to my Feb 6 letter <http://isoc-ny.org/misc/2017-02-06_isoc-ny_dotnyc.pdf> pointing out they were asleep at the wheel. It appeared to him the relevant page <http://www.ownit.nyc/restricted-reserved> had been hurriedly updated. Since, apparently he has other domains that might also be considered variants on the 7 words, he got back on to Neustar for some clarification, demanded to see a list. 'Guy' at Neustar support informed him that nothing of the like existed - that it was decided on case by case basis - and to add insult to injury sany deleted restricted names might, as policies change, be released and sold to the highest bidder without any recourse for the original registrant.
Thus he writes / / /I have concluded that all of my .nyc domain names (more than 20) were registered without binding terms or a policy of any kind on behalf of Namecheap or Neustar / ownit.nyc <http://ownit.nyc/>, and I suspect that this is a case for a large percentage of sold .nyc domains. Yet my domain name was seized for a breach of policy, a policy I was never introduced to nor agreed to. If any of my other names are added to the list, they can seize it at any time, despite the fact that I've owned them for 2 years now. / / / /The greatest ethical concern I have is that an entity operating in this way reserves the right to put a domain name on the reserved/restricted list at any point in time, even if it was already sold and owned for 2 years. I was informed by "Guy" at Neustar support that there is a possibility reserved/restricted names will be released in the future, however they are released back to the public (they go back up for sale), not to the original owner. I have many .nyc domain names that appear as variations according to their list./ / / /Where is the oversight? Who is to prevent Neustar from seizing a domain name for a period of time, then conveniently releasing it later only to buy it themselves using an alias or through a third party?/ / / <snip> / / /It just doesn't seem right. If Neustar was unable to properly inform name holders on policy creations, changes, and updates in the past 5 years on city tax dollars, I don't think they should operate for another second. It shouldn't take a committee to generate a "no", I think their shady track record in the past 5 years speaks for itself. And this being New York City, we deserve better.// /
I've responded to him, noting that 7 word policy is in the City's .nyc contract (appears to have been published April 1 2015, and the .nyc Acceptable Use Policy (which doesn't mention that policy but says they can delete at will) has been public since July 2014. Caveat emptor. I noted that Neustar is obligated to file copies of Registrar Registry Agreements with the City, and he could FOIL it to see if NameCheap had met their obligations. I also opined that, in the unlikely event Neustar were to resell a previously deleted name, they would be asking for trouble,
However I think he rightfully raises the wider issue of the right of registrants to be properly informed of restrictive gTLD policies before they put their money on the line. Is there something like that in existing policy?
And also, to possibly the wider amusement of schoolboys etc, maybe ICANN or somebody should perhaps maintain a definitive reference of unacceptable variants of the 7 words.
joly
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com ICANN At-Large Advisory Council Author: WHOIS Running the Internet http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html
I see a decision has just come down that might affect this case, if Neustar extends the same policy to ,nyc. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180913_seven_dirty_words_restriction_policy_... On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:09 PM, gbruen@knujon.com <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
This does not surprise me
On 2/20/17 6:10 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I have just been contacted by the former registrant of fucked.nyc.
He registered it via namecheap.com on March 3 2015 and renewed it earlier this week.
On Feb 18 2017 he received a msg from Neustar informing him that it had been found non-compliant with the "Seven Word Policy" and deleted. Neustar advised him to contact his registrar for any refunds they might care to make.
He contacted NameCheap who essentially said "Forgettaboutit'", despite him pointing out that at no time had he been notified about, or agreed to be bound by, any such policy.
Here is NameCheap's response:
*Recently, you contacted our Live Chat support regarding deletion offucked.nyc <http://fucked.nyc/>. Feel free to use chat ID XQR-359-35382 for reference. We wanted to let you know, that we have forwarded a suggestion about special notices for .NYC domains to the corresponding team. We are really sorry that you faced such a situation and our replies were not so helpful. Different Registry companies can have different policies in regards of registration their domains and they usually reserve a right to change their requirements or delete domains which do not meet them. This does not happen often, still it is not possible to keep customers informed about all the Registry policies or their changes on a contant manner, to our regret. The amount you paid for the domain purchase was used to register/renew the domain at the .NYC Registry. However, the Registry still can delete domains without any refund if they do not meet their requirements. We are working on improving our performance and hopefully special messages on the site can help to avoid such situations in future. If you have questions or require assistance, feel free to contact us at any time.*
The registrant did some further research and surmised that Neustar's vigilance could well be due to my Feb 6 letter <http://isoc-ny.org/misc/2017-02-06_isoc-ny_dotnyc.pdf> pointing out they were asleep at the wheel. It appeared to him the relevant page <http://www.ownit.nyc/restricted-reserved> had been hurriedly updated. Since, apparently he has other domains that might also be considered variants on the 7 words, he got back on to Neustar for some clarification, demanded to see a list. 'Guy' at Neustar support informed him that nothing of the like existed - that it was decided on case by case basis - and to add insult to injury sany deleted restricted names might, as policies change, be released and sold to the highest bidder without any recourse for the original registrant.
Thus he writes
*I have concluded that all of my .nyc domain names (more than 20) were registered without binding terms or a policy of any kind on behalf of Namecheap or Neustar / ownit.nyc <http://ownit.nyc/>, and I suspect that this is a case for a large percentage of sold .nyc domains. Yet my domain name was seized for a breach of policy, a policy I was never introduced to nor agreed to. If any of my other names are added to the list, they can seize it at any time, despite the fact that I've owned them for 2 years now. *
*The greatest ethical concern I have is that an entity operating in this way reserves the right to put a domain name on the reserved/restricted list at any point in time, even if it was already sold and owned for 2 years. I was informed by "Guy" at Neustar support that there is a possibility reserved/restricted names will be released in the future, however they are released back to the public (they go back up for sale), not to the original owner. I have many .nyc domain names that appear as variations according to their list.*
*Where is the oversight? Who is to prevent Neustar from seizing a domain name for a period of time, then conveniently releasing it later only to buy it themselves using an alias or through a third party?*
<snip>
*It just doesn't seem right. If Neustar was unable to properly inform name holders on policy creations, changes, and updates in the past 5 years on city tax dollars, I don't think they should operate for another second. It shouldn't take a committee to generate a "no", I think their shady track record in the past 5 years speaks for itself. And this being New York City, we deserve better.*
I've responded to him, noting that 7 word policy is in the City's .nyc contract (appears to have been published April 1 2015, and the .nyc Acceptable Use Policy (which doesn't mention that policy but says they can delete at will) has been public since July 2014. Caveat emptor. I noted that Neustar is obligated to file copies of Registrar Registry Agreements with the City, and he could FOIL it to see if NameCheap had met their obligations. I also opined that, in the unlikely event Neustar were to resell a previously deleted name, they would be asking for trouble,
However I think he rightfully raises the wider issue of the right of registrants to be properly informed of restrictive gTLD policies before they put their money on the line. Is there something like that in existing policy?
And also, to possibly the wider amusement of schoolboys etc, maybe ICANN or somebody should perhaps maintain a definitive reference of unacceptable variants of the 7 words.
joly
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
------ NA-Discuss mailing listNA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Garth Bruengbruen@knujon.com
617-947-3805http://www.knujon.com ICANN At-Large Advisory Council Author: WHOIS Running the Internethttp://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
participants (3)
-
gbruen＠knujon.com -
Joly MacFie -
Judith Hellerstein