More on Red Register
If you take a close look at the address to which Stacy Burnette has been sending her Red Register breach notices -- 8025 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 Madison WI 53717 -- you will discover that the address corresponds to CT Corporation System (a registered service of process agent)(1) You will also note that the phone and fax numbers provided by Red Register to ICANN are not in the U.S., but rather in the U.K. I think it's time to once again renew our call for accurate and reliable registrar place-of-business particulars as part of the promised-but-not-delivered long-overdue review of the ICANN registrar accreditation procedure. The recent RAA amendment (3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address) remains insufficient. Our interest is not in knowing where the registrar maintains an accurate process of service address, but rather from which real address the registrar is actually conducting its business. Lest anyone forget, Red Register was sued by MicroSoft in late 2007 for cybersquatting activities. (2) (1) http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/assets/pdf/U013999987.PDF (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR2007122401...
If you take a close look at the address to which Stacy Burnette has been sending her Red Register breach notices -- 8025 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 Madison WI 53717 -- you will discover that the address corresponds to CT Corporation System (a registered service of process agent)...
Now you're just getting into crazy talk, Danny. Every company in the U.S. has to designate an agent for service of process. The agent so designated is the official place to serve you with communications like this. Most companies use an out-sourced provider, like CT. This is what *should* happen. It's what you *want* to happen. -- Bret
Sorry to disagree Bret, but the address of a service of process agent is insufficient. We need to know the real address where a registrar conducts his business so that on-site audits (if necessary, as they were during the registerfly debacle) can be conducted. This information is supposed to be supplied during the accreditation process -- the very first data element in the registrar accredition application asks for Name and business address of entity applicant. The obvious problem here is that we have registrars buying their accreditations and not providing ICANN with accurate business addresses. This is a case in point: You will notice that the Red Register registrant is listed as: Red Register, Inc Rahul (rahul.dot@gmail.com) 150 West Maynard,Apt 1k Columbus Ohio,43202 US Tel. +1.83229515 Never mind that the phone number is incorrect... this address corresponds exactly to Bhavin Turakhia's Top Class Names registrar (1). It sure looks like Red Register bought an accreditation from Bhavin and never bothered to change the contact details. For those who don't remember, Top Class Names Inc. (IANA ID# 821) was the corporate predecessor to "Registerfly".(2) ICANN pointed to the issues associated with accreditation by purchase (3) during the RAA amendments cycle, yet the final adopted amendment still set no obligation upon the registrar to accurately report its own business address: 5.9 Assignment; Change of Ownership or Management. 5.9.1 Either party may assign or transfer this Agreement only with the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 5.9.2 To the extent that an entity acquires a controlling interest in Registrar’s stock, assets or business, Registrar shall provide ICANN notice within thirty (30) days of such an acquisition. Such notification shall include a statement that affirms that Registrar meets the ICANN-adopted specification or policy on accreditation criteria then in effect, and is in compliance with its obligations under this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of such notification, ICANN may request additional information from the Registrar establishing compliance with this Agreement, in which case Registrar must supply the requested information within fifteen (15) days. Any disputes concerning Registrar's continued accreditation shall be resolved pursuant to Subsection 5.6. It remains a problem that still needs to be fixed. (1) http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:3BZNkSq9WPoJ:www.icann.org/en/legal/ica... (2) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/jeffrey-to-medina-16mar07.pdf --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
From: Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] More on Red Register To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:26 PM
If you take a close look at the address to which Stacy Burnette has been sending her Red Register breach notices -- 8025 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 Madison WI 53717 -- you will discover that the address corresponds to CT Corporation System (a registered service of process agent)...
Now you're just getting into crazy talk, Danny. Every company in the U.S. has to designate an agent for service of process. The agent so designated is the official place to serve you with communications like this. Most companies use an out-sourced provider, like CT. This is what *should* happen. It's what you *want* to happen.
-- Bret
------ 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 ------
participants (2)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger