Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
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.
Hi Volker (and Michele), During our debate on CircleID, Jothan Frakes suggested that KnujOn meet with the registrars. I thought this was a good idea and proposed it to Mason Cole of the Registrar Constituency. Some registrars told him they were unwilling to have me come to the upcoming meeting in Cartagena, because we appear to be too combative. It appears to me that you and Michele are not afraid of intense debate (Michele once spoke out at a presentation I gave at RIPE). Are you willing to try to change Mason's position, so that I can make an appearance at the RC meeting - open to any questions, complaints, etc? The objective is to start a serious dialogue between KnujOn and the registrars, beyond the current debate. --bob KnujOn
On 23 July 2010 11:26, Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> wrote:
Hi Volker (and Michele),
During our debate on CircleID, Jothan Frakes suggested that KnujOn meet with the registrars. I thought this was a good idea and proposed it to Mason Cole of the Registrar Constituency. Some registrars told him they were unwilling to have me come to the upcoming meeting in Cartagena, because we appear to be too combative. It appears to me that you and Michele are not afraid of intense debate (Michele once spoke out at a presentation I gave at RIPE).
Are you willing to try to change Mason's position, so that I can make an appearance at the RC meeting - open to any questions, complaints, etc?
The objective is to start a serious dialogue between KnujOn and the registrars, beyond the current debate.
I support this and am prepared to ask ALAC to formally endorse this request. You never progress peace by refusing to talk. I myself am not likely on Mr. Cole's Christmas card list; we have already had ... issues ... regarding ICANN's closed regional meetings. I am personally dismayed at ICANN support staff playing the role of registrar spokesperson and gatekeeper; unless ICANN wants to remain to be seen by the public as a trade association for registrars, such coziness between support staff and constituents should really be discouraged. But I digress... As I asked before... I have seen the claims saying that Knujon's methods are sloppy. In this exchange between Volker and Garth I have seen some instances of mis-communications and different interpretations, but zero sloppiness. A meeting would help to reduce the mis-communications, and should provide useful feedback to Garth on how to avoid inadvertently listing registrars who are doing what they should. I note that in one case mentioned there is a distinction made between "letter of the law" (adhering to the absolute wording of the contract) while clearly violating the "spirit of the law" (the behavior the contract is trying the enforce/prevent). This indeed is appropriate in the case of a registrar who has the information on their website but puts it in a place that's very difficult to find (ie, five levels down in the website and/or marked just by an icon with no description). Volker, in those cases I believe that these instances *are* fair game for Garth's attention. If the obfuscation of the contact information is accidental, the registrar can easily correct the situation. If the registrar is made aware of this but ignores it, that registrar *does* deserve to be pointed out. In this case it should be clear that the bad activity is technically within the contact but still bad behavior as a matter of opinion. And Volker, I think you'll agree that expressing an opinion that may be detrimental to a company, if made in good faith (and by someone with zero stake in the company's success or failure) is rarely actionable. This is especially so if the opinion is based on documented and consistent policies. OTOH, I may be siding with Volker on one point of interpretation. I don't expect a personal email response from Google on every possible customer service question that may arise, especially if there's an easily-findable answer on their site. Same with Amazon (except on the specific status of my own transactions with them). Or many other sites. This is the whole point of sites having FAQ areas. Many companies use their websites to provide information that reduces the burden of public-facing support staff. While "how much personal customer service to provide" is a business decision, handling most customer service on the website is IMO a legitimate option. IFF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if> a registrar makes their (accurate) WHOIS access information easily available on their website (from a clearly labeled top level menu choice or an FAQ entry) then it may be unnecessarily severe to downgrade them for not personally answering questions that are already (clearly) answered. Individual email service need not be a requirement of good behaviour if the information is easily accessible on the company's site. I say that from the perspective of a small business owner who doesn't have substantial resources. I create a website FAQ section to avoid/reduce individual queries on significant issues. While such a policy may not be as comfortable as someone might want, it is IMO a reasonable approach that should be sufficient (should be clear and accurate) for being seen as a "good player". Considering the confrontational state that exists between Knojon and many registrars, it may even be understandable why some choose not to answer Knujon requests/surveys. However, if these site provide sufficient, accurate and clear information on their websites, they should not be penalised for not providing answers on the same issue by private mail. Just my opinion. - Evan
Hi Evan, We would be happy with a FAQ that contained the registar's address, etc, as well as on the front page, About Us, Contact page or some other place. The point was simply that it be easily accessible. We do find it curious, though, that a business would not make it obvious to potential consumers of their products/services. Thank you for your support of the meeting idea. It is also curious that the registrars, as an industry, are wary of having one guy on stage to face whatever they want to throw at me. Seems like a fair odds, one vs many. No worries about agreeing with a point made by Volker :) --bob
participants (3)
-
Bob Bruen -
Evan Leibovitch -
Volker Greimann