Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
Dear Volker, Dear Evan, Thank you Volker, who brought this to my attention. I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some issues as Volker tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally looking for a argument where there is none. <<A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of context, Garth.>> Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html). You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it. Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us. <<We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such accusations may amount to libellous[sic] interference.>> Volker, the document reads: "Registrars in Potential Breach with Relevant RAA Section" -POTENTIAL- Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry about their Port 43 WHOIS" Do you dispute this fact? Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) – Reporter commented that fee policies were not clear" We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response. <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>> Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part. We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about a previous conversation. <<Should we then be required to answer each and every mail requesting information that is already openly available?>> Well, yes. That's what a responsible company would do. It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told you about previously. I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy domains. <<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>> Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website. -Garth
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Fri, July 23, 2010 6:53 am To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org, gbruen@knujon.com, evan@telly.org Cc: Michele@mail.key-systems.net, "Neylon:"@mail.key-systems.net:Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie>
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 Garth,
Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html). You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it.
Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us. We would not sue you to shut you up or stop you from doing your reports, but we may still sue for libellous interference, i.e. spreading untrue and harmful accusations. Even the accusation of potential breach can seriously impact our ability to do business and is damaging to our reputation. After you now know where our whois service is located, a fact which you could have easily found out on your own (and probably did), it is time to correct the report if you want to continue to claim is is accurate in its entirety.
Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry about their Port 43 WHOIS"
Do you dispute this fact? No, but I do not see where there is an obligation to do so. I do wish to point out that we usually do resond even to the most outlandish requests and normally your mail should have received an answer. The fact remains however, that you could have found out the information, if you tried. Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) – Reporter commented that fee policies were not clear"
We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response. A bit more detail would be helpful. What about our price list (http://dd24.net/?js=1&page=domains_pricing) is unclear? I admit, due to the large amounts of TLDs on offer, it is a bit long and unwieldy, which may confuse someone who usually only deals with gTLD specialized registrars, but it contains all prices on one easy to use page. I do not know how much clearer we could display our prices. <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>>
Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part. We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about a previous conversation. You claim possible breach of the RAA, so the failure to respond to your mail cannot be the issue. The issue in that case can only be the failure to provide the service we are bound to provide. And that simply is not the case. Normally, you should and would have received an answer to your mail. But our failure to respond is not an indication of potential breach. It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they Hunt and peck? A single query of key-systems.net would suffice. No need to seek out any other domain name. Maybe our view of openly available is different, but I see that as very open and very available. Please note that to be able use port 43 whois, you know what you are doing with it and therefore will have a basic idea on how to use it. would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told you about previously. Regarding the domain names listed: None of them are "our sites". Three were registered through three different resellers, one directly through our customer portal using stolen data. One (of five) was never registered through our service. Three that showed illegal content are now deactivated. But please use our abuse address in the future. I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy domains. While GlavMed and illegal pharmacies were not part of the official report, you are running into open doors here. We have no interest in sponsoring illegally used domain names and will shut them down whenever we find them. It is however impossible for us to check the use of each domain name registered through our service. More sadly, the registrations arrive from various sources, and do not announce themselves to be what they are upon registration. But I do pledge I will deactivate any domain name used for illegal (in Germany) purposes as soon as possible whenever I receive notice.
Waiting for the apology, and I would appreciate your issueing it not only here, but everywhere where you espoused your report and thereby accused us of potential breach.
<<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>>
Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website. Far from me trying to mince words, but neither is the information buried, no is it 5 levels deep. If you look at dd24.net, our retail portal, and click on domains, there will be an entry marked "prices". Click it and you find the prices. It is on the third level, in a logical place. If you want to know the prices for domain names, that is where any sensible person would look. If you try to register a domain name, you will also get the specific annual price of that name, presented clear and obvious.
As we offer a wide range of TLDs, the long list of prices may seem confusing to some, but it is the best way to structure the prices so they can be accessed most easily. And you still did not answer the question of what was found to be confusing. 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.
participants (2)
-
Garth Bruen at KnujOn -
Volker Greimann