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

On 30/10/2015, 7:37 p.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:



>
>In message <3469D4B3-C08D-4DFF-A271-587C8EE818DC at blacknight.com>, 
>Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you, Mr. Neylon, *are* the head of
>one of the registrar companies that has a direct financial interest in
>this matter, right?  Is that correct is it not?

Blacknight is a registrar and hosting provider.


>
>Also, while researching this topic (2013 RAA) I came upon the following
>document which describes you as having been the "chair of the Registrars
>Stakeholder Group", which "negotiated" against ICANN the terms of the
>2013 RAA contract.  Is that true also?


Not really.

I am currently the Chair of the Registrar Stakeholder Group. I was not Chair during the negotiations of the 2013 RAA so I was not directly involved in the negotiations with ICANN

>
>   http://domainnamewire.com/tag/michele-neylon/
>
>Your opinions on this matter may perhaps have some validity, but
>you are not exactly a totally uninterested and unbiased observer,
>are you?


I never said I was.

>
>In fact, prior to the finalization of the 2013 RAA, you personally were
>doing all you could to make your views known to the widest possible
>audience, in particular your view that the responsibilities assigned
>to registrars, in particular, for insuring the accuracy of WHOIS data
>should be minimized.  You _did_ write the following, didn't you?

Yes of course I did

>
>   http://blog.blacknight.com/dont-make-us-treat-our-customers-like-criminals.html
>
>To be clear, in case I wasn't already, I take exception to the extremely
>weak terms and conditions of the 2013 Registrar Accreditaion Agreement...
>terms and conditions which, it appears, you yourself negotiated against
>ICANN to weaken and minimize on behalf of the Registrars Stakeholder Group,
>of which you were Chairman.

As already stated I wasn’t Chair.

>
>Specifically, and in particular, I take exception to the wording
>of sub-section 1.e of what is humorously called the "WHOIS ACCURACY
>PROGRAM SPECIFICATION" portion of the 2013 RAA terms and conditions
>which requires registrars to do the following:
>
>     e.  Validate that all postal address fields are consistent across
>         fields (for example: street exists in city, city exists in
>         state/province, city matches postal code) where such information
>         is technically and commercially feasible for the applicable country
>         or territory.
>
>Is this is a joke?  Who decides what is or isn't "commercially feasible"?
>Obviously, the registrars themselves... the foxes guarding the henhouse.
>So all any registrar has to do in order to opt-out completely from this
>phony baloney "requirement" is simply to assert the CLAIM that FOR THEM,
>individually, the above requirement is not "commercially feasible".  Is
>that not correct?
>
>How many registrars are actually checking EVEN and ONLY that the postal
>addresses in WHOIS records are even just valid postal addresses?
>
>I am *not* asking how many registrars check that the postal addresses
>in WHOIS records are actually CORRECT ones for the specific domain
>registrants who are using them.  I am only asking you, Michele Neylon,
>in your capacity as Chairman of the Registrars Stakeholder Group, to
>tell me how many of the members of your group are even just checking
>that the postal addresses in WHOIS records are real, and not entirely
>bogus?
>
>Would that number be zero ?
>
>I also take profound exception to the following ridiculous "requirement",
>which is also present in the 2013 RAA, and which requires registrars to:
>
>   f.  Verify:
>
>       i.  the email address of the Registered Name Holder (and, if different,
>           the Account Holder) by sending an email requiring an affirmative
>           response through a tool-based authentication method such as
>           providing a unique code that must be returned in a manner
>           designated by the Registrar, or
>
>       ii. the telephone number of the Registered Name Holder (and, if
>           different, the Account Holder) by either (A) calling or sending
>           an SMS to the Registered Name Holder's telephone number providing
>           a unique code that must be returned in a manner designated by the
>           Registrar, or (B) calling the Registered Name Holder's telephone
>           number and requiring the Registered Name Holder to provide a
>           unique code that was sent to the Registered Name Holder via web,
>           email or postal mail.
>
>Simple question: Why is this an either/or?  Why aren't registrars required
>make at least some effort to validate BOTH the WHOIS contact e-mail address
>AND also the WHOIS contact phone number?
>
>You yourself, Mr. Neylon, negotiated against ICANN for the inclusion of
>this language into the 2013 RAA, so perhaps you can explain to us all
>why the registrars aren't required to lift a finger to validate the
>phone numbers that appear in WHOIS records.
>
>I, for one, would really like to hear you try to explain that.
>
>I understand that you have a *political* (and financially incentivized)
>viewpoint that domain registrants should be able to remain secretive
>and anonymous, regardless of whether or not that is in the best
>interests of the 2+ billion ordinary (and honest) users of the internet.
>And it would appear that you and your fellow registrars were able to
>prevail in this argument, and in this political viewpoint, specifically
>when you were negotiating the terms and conditions of the 2013 RAA against
>ICANN.  What I don't understand is why there is all of this pretense in
>the RAA to make it *appear* as if there really are some requirements
>imposed upon domain registrars to do some work to validate WHOIS information,
>when in fact, the plain language of the 2013 RAA, as quoted above, makes
>it abundantly clear that in fact, your group, the registrars, are only
>required to do the absolute bare minimum, and to look only at the WHOIS
>contact e-mail addresses... data values that are provably useless for
>actually identifying the domain registrant.
>
>So why all of the pretense?  Why didn't the 2013 RAA just simply state
>the obvious truth, i.e. that "Registrars are only required to make an
>effort to validate JUST the e-mail address" ?
>
>You negotiated the 2013 RAA Mr. Neylon.  Please explain.
>
>
>Regards,
>rfg
>