[anti-abuse-wg] ICANN's "Money Grab"

Ronald

There’s little point in pointing out the flaws in your “argument”, as you seem to view any facts that do not fit with your view as being invalid.

As has been pointed out to you in the past, the 2013 RAA was NOT welcomed by registrars.

Also, you are confusing registries and registrars.

If, as a registrar, I sell a domain for EUR10 the bulk of that money goes to the registry NOT my company.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/ 
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845






On 28/10/2015, 1:58 a.m., "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

>
>
>Yet more evidence that ICANN is simply serving their masters, the
>registrars, while shafting the rest of us:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/27/verisign_warns_new_gtlds_could_destabilize_internet/
>
>
>Taken together, the new gTLD program, and ICANN's lame and half-hearted
>"negotiation" of a new (2013) Registrar Accreditation Agreement... an
>agreement which fully supports business-as-usual, i.e. -ZERO- requirements
>for registrars to perform any meaningful validation of WHOIS information,
>ever... should make it clear to anybody who has any lingering doubts
>that the unregulated monopoly known as ICANN is basically an organization
>that... if it did not have a lot of powerful friends... would probably
>be investigated (in the U.S. at least) under the Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.
>
>
>What has this all got to do with network "abuse"?  Simple.  ICANN has
>bent itself to the will of its real constituents (the registrars) and
>made sure that none of them will ever be contractually obligated to 
>ever do anything other than send an e-mail to the contact e-mail address
>in a disputed domain WHOIS record... e.g. <Mr.Phony.Baloney at hotmail.com>...
>and then get an affirmative reply back.  The registrars are NEVER even
>required to find fault with even the most ridiculously bogus physical
>address information (e.g. "123 Planetary Way, Mars, Milky Way, 999999")
>nor are they ever contractually required to take any action at all if
>one of their registered domain names has a contact phone number of
>+9.999999999.
>
>Don't believe me?  Look it up.  It's in the contract (2013 RAA)... plain
>as day.
>
>Why is there so much crime, phishing, hacking, and spamming on the net?
>Well, you can't catch the criminals and the spammers if you can't find
>them.  And ICANN... or rather the registrars who make ICANN policy on
>these things... have made sure that NOBODY will ever be able to find
>any spammer or criminal who doesn't want to be found.  OF COURSE they
>will all swear up and down that they have done this for the benefit of,
>or at the request of "privacy advocates".  It's just a complete
>coincidence that it also helps them to line their own pockets.
>
>And if you believe that, then I have a bridge that I'd like to have you
>take a look at.
>
>
>Regards,
>rfg
>