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:
3.7.7.1 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 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.7and 3.3.1.8.
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 Organization:ICANN
Registrant Street1:12025 Waterfront Drive
Registrant Street2:Suite 300
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Los Angeles
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:90094-2536
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4242171313
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.4242171313
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 Street1:UNICC
Registrant Street2:Palais des Nations
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Geneva 10
Registrant State/Province:Geneva
Registrant Postal Code:1211
Registrant Country:CH
Registrant Phone:+41.229291411
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.
John Berryhill says
Clearly Mr. Centre lives on UNICC street.
Russ says
Now here’s one where everyone can help:
1. Pull up whois on the following domains, and any more you can think of with “role” contacts instead of individuals:
icann.org
wipo.org
barackobama.com
google.com
gmail.com
yahoo.com
facebook.com
amazon.com
nbc.com
abc.com
cbs.com
verisigninc.com
pir.org
2. Visit http://wdprs.internic.net/ and complete a report on those domains, indicating that they do not list individuals as contacts
3. Pray for compliance to learn some common sense from the backlash
KD says
I have considered this for a long time. Especially with ICANN. However, what happens in big organizations is that you don’t want to put an individuals name on whois. Because it is a title / department that is resposible. And you don’t want “Jim Smith” to be responsible for your domain after he has left the company.
I think enforcing the “name” is a technicality and if anything ICANN should update the requirement to say “name or department”. And when you look at it, “Domain Admin” or “Domain Administrator” is one of the most commonly used “names” in whois.
But yes, it is a mockery that ICANN does not follow their own guidelines.
John Berryhill says
The WHOIS data problem reporting system is hosted at internic.net, which itself has non-compliant WHOIS.
What genius in the ICANN Compliance department decided to start enforcing this requirement?
Russ says
Even better: gtld-servers.net and nstld.com are managed by an individual known as “NOC, Verisign”
Disabling those domains should stop all .com and .net domains from resolving.
Interestingly Afilias put Ram Mohan on the whois records for afilias-nst.org and .info, so the .org and .info tld’s appear safe from this nonsense… for now.
Frantisek Mrazek says
Actually the “real name” rule is stupid. If the domain name is owned by a company, it does belong to a company. Thats for OWNER. Tech or admin are different. But owner can be either a person or a company, not both.
Mike says
I hate having to put my name on domains and therefore I appointed my friend as an authorized person and put his name.Hopefully they wont enforce this because it is stupid. As long as it is valid company name why would they want to know the employees name ?.
Rob Golding says
In the UK Companies are considered persons so these would all be valid whois – sadly ICANN Compliance obviously live in La-La-Land where common sense was outlawed years ago.
Frank Drebin says
Don#t you Americans have a supreme court ruling that says Corporations are people or citizens? Problem solved!
JP says
Hey, corporations are people too!
John Berryhill says
“In the UK Companies are considered persons”
It would seem that the wording implies a natural person, in that those words in the RAA would add nothing if interpreted otherwise. By saying “name of authorized person … in the case of an … an organization, association, or corporation” the RAA language suggests that this person is to have a name other than that of the organization in question.
Sharkface says
Exactly….. why whois privacy is important:
“It’s a security risk to list an individual at your company as the contact.”
I might add… it’s also a risk for those silly attorneys that like to harass registrants and create silly lawsuits. those MFs.
Sharkface says
Trying to help those silly attorneys from overfilling for billable hours.
Sharkface says
Whois compliance really means “correct postal address…” and generally telephone number and of course… having the correct email address.
Dr. Jonathon Stevens says
ICANN has a much bigger problem. It is launching a trademark clearinghouse and it doesnt own:
TRADEMARKCLEARINGHOUSE.COM
It is also launching an “IP Clearinghouse” (see IPCLEARINGHOUSE.ORG) and it doesnt own:
IPCLEARINGHOUSE.COM
Shouldnt they have started with those names?
Sharkface says
Who cares about those silly domains ending in .com, they can go ahead and submit their own filing for a TLD, and use the domain from there….. 🙂
Maybe they can file for “.tmch” and “.ipch”, ohh yeah, I’m sure those area already claimed for by Google.
Sharkface says
Ohh, maybe ICANN can UDRP those domains from the current registrant.. – WOW. anyone here want to help ICANN file UDRP?
Michael Goldfarb says
I help operate a registrar, and I can tell you there is absolutely no common sense when it comes to ICANN’s compliance department. They are rude, nearly impossible to get in touch with over the phone, and hide behind their precious RAA, which, if interpreted to the letter, flies in the face of common sense and how the real world operates. Their policies surrounding WHOIS privacy also put them directly on the side of spammers, and directly against the interest of people who want to shield their email address to avoid spam harvesters. When I questioned them about this topic, they said they understood this scenario, but that the RAA trumped even this basic common sense.
It is also extremely easy for anybody to file a “complaint” which ICANN does seemingly nothing to vet for accuracy or even the lowest metric for determining legitimacy. These complaints take up valuable time to follow up on per the RAA requirements, and I can report that, in the case of our registrar at least, less than 10% of reports raise legitimate issues.
I will personally look forward to filing a WHOIS accuracy complaint against ICANN.org due to the issue raised above.
Sharkface says
Think about this one, more and more is coming out:
Remember:
1) ICANN’s almost $5million STOCK MARKET LOSS incurred. They had invested all those ICANN fees into the market, and lost it.
2) ICANN also makes a big deal with registrars especially, if anyone goes to ICANN’s COMPLAINT section and submits a complaint about a UDRP decision, for whatever the reason is.., ICANN will count that complaint as a strike against the registrar until the registrar resolves the issue.
ICANN crazy or spoiled with billions?
Sharkface says
I think everyone should be able to have PRIVACY on all their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
Dr. Jonathon Stevens says
ICANN WILL WANT THE .COM VERSIONS OF:
TRADEMARKCLEARINGHOUSE.COM (AND)
IPCLEARINGHOUSE.COM
No matter what other extension they use. That is how this whole GTLD expansion is going to go.
Would you register a version of just about any other name with someone else owning the .com?
No you wouldnt. Otherwise that person will benefit from your money, sweat, marketing, advertising, expertise etc.
This GTLD expansion is going to lead to the obvious explosion of domain name usage. However, .com will remain king and just get BIGGER AND BIGGER. Most people on these boards already see that.
theo says
Sharkface ping me if you want to be involved at one the next ICANN meetings. I have the feeling you do not grasp the multi stake holder model.
Short version ICANN is not for domainers.
Plankara Fisk says
I agree ICANN will want the .com versions of the names to use for the clearinghouse. For example:
TrademarkClearinghouse.com
TMCH.com
IPClearinghouse.com
IPCH.com
TMClearinghouse.com
etc.
Whatever they use. They NEED the DOT COM. Otherwise, they will look foolish.
Plankara Fisk says
Ill go a step farther. THEY NEED THE .COM VERSIONS (and) THEY NEED THE .ORG VERSION of the names that they use for the registry.
.org is of course for non-profit, which ICANN is of course non-profit.
They need the .coms also.
For example:
TMCH.com
TMCH.org
J.T. Willamantic Jr. says
.org is for non-profit and always will be. They need the names:
TrademarkClearinghouse.org (and) TMCH.org
Jason Jefferson says
No business will want any name with any extension without the .com also. That is how this new GTLD rollout will go. It will very interesting to see the new sales of the new names. Domain name purchases will explode with with (ultimately) billions of more customers. However, businesses will not want ANY name without the .com to go with it.
Sharkface says
.org is not for non-profit!!!
J. T. Willamantic Jr. says
The domain extension (.org) was originally created for non-profits, but today it is commonly used by schools, open-source projects, communities, and for-profit entities. The number of registered .org domains have increased from less than one million in the 1990s, to ten million as of June, 2012.