Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows
<<Yes, we are an ICANN-accredited registrar supply services to resellers.>> You just said you were a reseller <<We have always had a valid mailing address on our website.>> Where? <<We have always been ICANN compliant.>> Staff just said otherwise <<We can make our address easier for Garth to find if desired.>> It's not about me, this is about adhering to the contract Stay tuned for an announcement at noon
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows From: helen@dotalliance.com Date: Tue, December 07, 2010 10:25 pm To: "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, gbruen@knujon.com Cc: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Hi!
Yes, we are an ICANN-accredited registrar supply services to resellers.
Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any questions.
We have always had a valid mailing address on our website.
We have always been ICANN compliant.
We can make our address easier for Garth to find if desired.
Sent from my BlackBerry and all typos are its fault!
Best regards, Helen
www.DotAlliance.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:26:32
To: <gbruen@knujon.com>
Cc: Carlton Samuels<carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Helen<helen@dotalliance.com>; ICANNAt-Large Staff<staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows
Hi Garth,
Compliance staff have sent the following information on DotAlliance:
**
According to our records, DotAlliance is an ICANN-accredited registrar. See
below:
DotAlliance Inc.
Registrar IANA ID
1249
Registrar Corporation Type
Canada Corporation
RAA Version
2009
Accreditation Date
2009-07-01
Accreditation Expiration Date
2014-06-30
URL
www.dotalliance.com
<https://connect.icann.org/,DanaInfo=www.dotalliance.com+>
It appears that they only have their email addresses posted on their website
but not postal address so they are deemed non-compliant.
**
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White,
Marilyn Vernon,
ICANN At-Large Staff
From: gbruen@knujon.com [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:50 AM
To: Helen; ICANN At-Large Staff
Cc: Carlton Samuels; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the
Shadows
Hi Helen,
We're jumping from one problem to another. According to ICANN, you are a
Registrar: http://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-1249.html
I think ICANN staff needs to clarify this immediately.
Which Registrar are you a reseller for if you are reseller?
-Garth
From: Helen <mailto:helen@dotalliance.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:24 AM
To: gbruen@knujon.com
Cc: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <mailto:michele@blacknight.ie> ; Carlton
Samuels <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the
Shadows
Hi Garth!
As a reseller we've never felt the address needs to be on the front page in
flashing neon lights.
But we have had the address on our website for years.. I believe from the
start!
In addition, all resellers do need to sign the registrant agreement so they
must look at it.
http://dotalliance.com/registrationagree.html#definitions
I will ask someone to look at putting it on the contact page if this is so
distressing, however we are not nor have ever been in breach with the RAA.
I wish I was able be in Columbia to see everyone, unfortunately an illness
in the family prevents this or even much of a peep out of me for a while.
Just remember ...someone owes me a beer in Frisco! :)
Best, Helen
www.DotAlliance.com
On 06/12/2010 5:30 AM, gbruen@knujon.com wrote:
I checked into the claims by Michele (or maybe I should address you as
"Blacknight"?) and my suspicions were confirmed. He has completely distorted
the issues and ignored the critical problem. Active Registrar, Compana,
Directi, DOTALLIANCE, EVERYONES INTERNET, NICCO, RESELLER SERVICES, UK2
GROUP, VOLUSION, YNOT DOMAINS, and OWN IDENTITY have not corrected the
problem as cited since June and ICANN compliance has not addressed the
issue. You've glossed over this.
You've also glossed over the fact that OnLineNIC was allowed to sign on to
the 2009 RAA without first complying and has not been held to comply since,
even through we were informed they would be held to the RAA after signing.
In our original report we expressed our concern the the other Registrars
would also be allowed to re-sign without meeting this requirement, and why
should they have to when it's not enforced? Why would they opt for public
disclosure when their competitors are not held by any standard? Does this
not concern you?
The RAA has become meaningless and the Internet user DESERVERS BETTER.
If you purport to be a leader in this community you'll expect better too.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <mailto:michele@blacknight.ie>
<michele@blacknight.ie>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 8:31 PM
To: "Carlton Samuels" <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
<carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Cc: <mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Two Years later, Dozens of Registrars Still in the
Shadows
I checked into the claims by Knujon and my suspicions were confirmed.
Of the registrars supposedly in breach 50% are NOT on the 2009 RAA. They
are, therefore, NOT in breach, so I wonder how long we will have to wait
for a corrected / updated version of this report
Regards
Michele
Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
On 4 Dec 2010, at 23:14, "Carlton Samuels"
<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
wrote:
Garth:
I commend you and KnuJon for keeping at this issue. It is one thing to
be
the slacker in a contract. But the fact that ICANN fails to embrace its
duty of care to the community in ensuring that contracted parties live up
to
the terms and condition of contract remains scandalous.
The low hanging fruit of an explanation would be ignorance of its
commitment. But reason and good judgment suggests that this would be a
stretch for explanation. Time enough for ICANN to rise to the occasion
and
do its duty.
Carlton
[Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG]
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
1. Two Years Later Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows
(Garth Bruen at KnujOn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:49:35 -0700
From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>
<gbruen@knujon.com>
Subject: [NA-Discuss] Two Years Later Dozens of Registrars Still in
the Shadows
To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Folks,
In June of 2008 KnujOn reported that 70 Registrars did not have a
business address listed in the InterNIC Registrar Directory. Only after
reporting a month later that little had changed did ICANN perform a mass
update of the directory. On further inspection we found many of the
newly disclosed addresses were phantom locations, false addresses, and
PO boxes. This lead to a push to amend the RAA and require Registrar
location disclosure and resulted in RAA 3.16: "Registrar shall provide
on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and
mailing address." However, policy without policy enforcement is useless.
So far ICANN compliance has failed to enforce this rule even after being
provided with extensive evidence in June, 2010. In fact, several
Registrars cited five months ago for not posting their address have been
allowed to renew their accreditation without complying.
The following Registrars still do not disclose their address on their
website as required in RAA 3.16 and are in continued violation: Active
Registrar, Inc. (activeregistrar.com), COMPANA LLC (budgetnames.com),
Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. (publicdomainregistry.com), DOTALLIANCE
INC (dotalliance.com), EVERYONES INTERNET LTD. (resellone.net), NICCO
LTD. (nicco.com), RESELLER SERVICES INC. (ResellServ.com), UK2 GROUP
LTD. (uk2group.com), VOLUSION, INC. (volusion.com), YNOT DOMAINS CORP
(myorderbox.com), PREMIUM REGISTRATIONS SWEDEN
(premiumregistrations.com), AB CONNECT (hosteur.com), FUNPEAS MEDIA
VENTURES, LLC DBA DOMAINPROCESSOR.COM, DomainContext, Inc.
(isregistrar.com), NEW GREAT DOMAINS (newgreatdomains.com), ONLINENIC
INC. (onlinenic.com), OPEN SYSTEM LTD. (turbosite.com.br), OWN IDENTITY
INC (ownidentity.com), PACNAMES LTD (pacnames.com), QUANTUMPAGES
TECHNOLOGIES (ownregistrar.com), ULTRARPM INC. (metapredict.com), WEBAIR
INTERNET DEVELOPMENT (webair.com), ZOG MEDIA, INC. (zognames.com),
NAMEHOUSE, INC. (namehouse.net). The good news is that most of the 400
plus unique Registrars clearly provide their address in the home page
footer, a CONTACT US, or ABOUT US link and several Registrars cited in
June have since done so. Some Registrars bury the address in legal
documents, while we do not consider this compliant ICANN provides no
clear direction on where the address should be posted.
OnLineNIC is particularly troubling since their purported public
location is an empty lot in California with their true location being in
China, but only privately disclosed to ICANN. OnLineNIC's own domain
registration has been cited multiple times by KnujOn as being false.
Additionally, KnujOn has discovered that nine Registrars have
non-functional contact email addresses posted in the InterNIC directory:
RU-CENTER, Best Bulk Register (also has a breach notice for failure to
pay fees), Dynamic Network Services, Europe Domains, Homestead Limited,
HTTP.NET, Namescout, Hostmaster.ca, Nameshare Inc, and Universo Online.
Details of the email failures along with other results will be published
in our supplemental report on Monday December 6th.
RAA 3.16 is not the only unenforced contract obligation. In fact, most
of the RAA is unenforced with the exception being the Cardinal Sin of
failing to pay ICANN fees. KnujOn will actually detail an unprecedented
case in which a Registrar termination was reversed after back fees were
paid.
While Registrars control the content of their websites, ICANN really is
to blame for the failure to enforce the RAA and the anti-transparent
practice of having one Registrar directory for public consumption with
bad information and another internal list for their use.
Full article:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101203_two_years_later_dozens_of_registrars_
still_in_the_shadows/
-Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen
gbruen@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
Shop: http://www.cafepress.com/knujon
Bookstore: http://astore.amazon.com/knujocom-20
------
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
------
------
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
------
------
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
------
participants (1)
-
Garth Bruen at KnujOn