ICANN says article by KnujOn is factually inaccurate.
KnujOn has been a controversial group when it comes to trying to clean up domain name abuse.
Its latest attack was on ICANN in an article on CircleID titled “Two Years Later Dozens of Registrars Still in the Shadows“.
The crux of the article is that 23 domain name registrars do not disclose their addresses on their web sites as required in section 3.16 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
There’s a problem with that statement, writes ICANN Director of Contractual Compliance Stacy Burnette:
Unfortunately, your research ignored the fact that Section 3.16 is a new provision in the 2009 RAA, and as such registrars who are still operating under the 2001 RAA do not have this obligation and ICANN cannot enforce this provision against them.
According to Burnette, over half of the registrars on KnujOn’s list are, in fact, compliant with the RAA they are currently operating under.
Burnette closes the letter:
While we appreciate your efforts and we are pursuing those registrars we deemed non-compliant with website posting requirements, we strongly recommend that you take time to check facts and details to avoid publishing inaccurate information.
You Know Me says
ICANN ignores facts, opinions from the Internet community, and common sense all the time.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
.
Louise says
Can you tell me, @ Andrew, or can someone offer me a clear answer here: Are Registrars obliged under the OLD RAA if they signed it years ago? or under the new one? Or both? Or a combination of the two? Who determines what percentage of each RAA Registrars are obliged under, ICANN or the Registrars? Or is it a combination of both?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Louise – I’m not sure when a “mandatory” change to the new RAA may occur. I know there was small financial incentive (in the form of a reduced ICANN per-domain fee) to sign the new one.
Fred Showker says
Aside from weak excuses, hiding behind ‘policy’ erosion, it’s still against policy to purvey false, spoofed or hijacked WhoIS info — and ALL of the targeted registrars still harbor WhoIS fraud. EVEN after reporting. (I’ve reported hundreds) And they ALWAYS turn up when investigating cyber crime activities.
So, someone needs to ask how come ICANN doesn’t take the high road and do what’s right when it comes to cyber crime?
Hello? Is anybody home?
Garth Bruen (Knujon) says
Our full response is available here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101203_two_years_later_dozens_of_registrars_still_in_the_shadows/#7401
Be careful what you wish for.