Technically ICANN and WIPO’s whois records aren’t compliant.
Since the meltdown of Registerfly.com several years ago, ICANN has continued to promise to better police compliance with the registrar accreditation agreement (RAA), including the WHOIS provisions of the RAA.
I have recently heard that one of the clauses of the RAA which ICANN Compliance is looking at is this one:
126.96.36.199 The Registered Name Holder shall provide to Registrar accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the Registered Name registration, including: the full name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number if available of the Registered Name Holder; name of authorized person for contact purposes in the case of an Registered Name Holder that is an organization, association, or corporation; and the data elements listed in Subsections 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206and 220.127.116.11.
In other words, the RAA requires the name of an actual person as the contact.
But let’s take a look at the whois record for ICANN.org:
Registrant Name:Domain Administrator
Registrant Street1:12025 Waterfront Drive
Registrant Street2:Suite 300
Registrant City:Los Angeles
Registrant Postal Code:90094-2536
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Instead of having the name of a contact, ICANN simply put “Domain Administrator”.
You’ll see something similar on WIPO’s whois record for WIPO.org:
Registrant Name:International Computing Centre
Registrant Organization:International Computing Centre
Registrant Street2:Palais des Nations
Registrant City:Geneva 10
Registrant Postal Code:1211
Apparently there’s some guy at WIPO named International Computing Centre. I don’t think Mr. Centre exists.
Of course, what ICANN and WIPO are doing is common practice. Most large companies, including Verizon, Facebook, and Google, don’t list an actual contact. It’s a security risk to list an individual at your company as the contact.
Should the requirement of an actual name be enforced? Probably not.
But if ICANN is going to enforce this with registrars, perhaps it should take a look at its own whois record first.