"Vint Cerf calls for Feedback on Walking Dead Registrars" (Registerfly)

[AdoptableDomains]

Vint Cerf basically calls out the problem of Registerfly being a "zombie" at ICANN meeting:

Vint Cerf, the chairman of ICANN, addressed the Registrar Constituency today in Lisbon. He asked, “At what point should ICANN get involved with a zombie (AKA walking dead) registrar? A few years ago, it was clear that ICANN would get involved in a dead registrar situation, but the line has blurred since then.” To a room full of registrars, it is a question that puts registrars on the defensive, but in light of the RegisterFly situation, the registrars were interested in cooperating with ICANN in this brainstorming session. Protecting the registrants and their domain names is a primary concern and focus of the ICANN Lisbon meeting. During the discussion, the issue of proxy registrations and how they can actually hurt, rather than protect, the registrant was raised several times.

...

rest of story and comments taken here:
http://blog.domaintools.com/2007/03/vint-cerf-calls-for-feedback-on-walking-dead-registrars/

 

[name idol]

Vint Cerf basically calls out the problem of Registerfly being a "zombie" at ICANN meeting:



rest of story and comments taken here:
http://blog.domaintools.com/2007/03/vint-cerf-calls-for-feedback-on-walking-dead-registrars/

About time too!

Would have preferred answers from ICANN instead of questions, but hopefully there is still time until the next one hits us.

[sarcasm] Also nice to know that ICANN is worried about our welfare in other ways, and is determined to be ahead of the curve on this other great issue of the day: registrants being hurt by their own use of private whois registrations (not sure how that argument works, but they must know best what's good or bad for us). [/sarcasm]

Thank you for the link!

 

[AdoptableDomains]

registrants being hurt by their own use of private whois registrations (not sure how that argument works, but they must know best what's good or bad for us).

What happens is that if you have whois privacy through a registrar (hint: registerfly) and a new registrar takes over with either damage to the database or failure to provide the translation database, then neither the original registrant or the new registrar can prove who owns the domain to get it to the rightful owner. What they are discussing is making a requirement that registrars share or escrow that real name to hidden name translation in case something happened. In the registerfly case you are totally trusting RF to handle your name record without proof of the real ownership beyond RF's database and accounting. The registry does not know who really purchased the name. You are also trusting them to forward renewal notices and UDRP notices. You could potentially lose a UDRP by default and never know it was filed if they fail to forward the notice to your real address.

 

[name idol]

...What they are discussing is making a requirement that registrars share or escrow that real name to hidden name translation in case something happened....

That would make a lot of sense - and possibly prove to many domainers that ICANN works, at least in terms of coming up with useful ideas (eventually).

I have traditionally been very pro-ICANN in terms of the big debates around its role, and perhaps have too high a standard for the way a similar body should/can work.

Communication is one area where I think it's not just a matter of expectations though - it wouldn't be rocket science to nominate a couple of people to liaise with the media in a way that helps mere mortals like myself understand where the discussion is heading in quasi-real time.

The need for that is clear if you compare and contrast your response above to the report we got, which only said:

"During the discussion, the issue of proxy registrations and how they can actually hurt, rather than protect, the registrant was raised several times."

To me this sounded like going on a crazy tangent and trying to change the subject from what should rightfully be the focus of this discussion: the abject failure of common sense in their handling of the RigisterFly debacle.

If you ever decided to start a blog reading the trends in ICANN thinking, I would definitely subscribe to the RSS

 

[Kate]

"During the discussion, the issue of proxy registrations and how they can actually hurt, rather than protect, the registrant was raised several times."

To me this sounded like going on a crazy tangent and trying to change the subject from what should rightfully be the focus of this discussion: the abject failure of common sense in their handling of the RigisterFly debacle.

That's exactly what I thought :bingo:
However I see one valid point: whois privacy can make it next to impossible to prove ownership of a domain if things go wrong or if the registrar is being dishonest. I do not use whois privacy for this and other reasons.
Also past whois info can and is archived (domaintools.com) and leaves a trail.
I am not too comfortable with the idea of data escrow either. It requires a great amount of trust in the holding party. If it's ICANN managing the escrow then I would be skeptical.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

The need for that is clear if you compare and contrast your response above to the report we got, which only said:

"During the discussion, the issue of proxy registrations and how they can actually hurt, rather than protect, the registrant was raised several times."

To me this sounded like going on a crazy tangent and trying to change the subject from what should rightfully be the focus of this discussion: the abject failure of common sense in their handling of the RigisterFly debacle.

Actually, I read a bit of the meeting transcripts from this weeks ICANN meeting. It appears many of the registrars themselves see the problems created by Registerfly and potential problems with whois proxy data. The registrars seem to be in favor of putting the proxy databases in escrow that could be accessed by ICANN or a subsequent registrar in the event of a registrar disaster to figure out who really has rights to the domains in privacy mode.

Some transcripts of this weeks ICANN meeting:
http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-public1-26mar07.htm.htm
It's a long transcript, but some very good points are brought up on registerfly and the need for proxy service escrow.

I almost lost 11 domains to registerfly's privacy service, and I didn't even select it. It was automatically selected at one point during a renewal. Since my names were at enom, but had registerfly/unified names proxy as the registrant, enom was reluctant to return them to me without proof I had a right to them. Registerfly's database was so screwed up, they didn't show in my account to prove it and registerfly wouldn't answer support requests to fix it. Registerfly also deleted most of the past support tickets that had damaging information on the way they were handled. Only by accessing whois history records from domaintools was I able to provide sufficient evidence they I owned them before registerfly hijacked my whois with proxy names. If they hadn't had expiration dates in 2008 back in 2005 when the privacy service happened, they probably would have ended up in an auction without my even knowing. I will never knowingly use a whois proxy service.

 

[MaxMcool]

Registerfly also deleted most of the past support tickets that had damaging information on the way they were handled. Only by accessing whois history records from domaintools was I able to provide sufficient evidence they I owned them before registerfly hijacked my whois with proxy names. If they hadn't had expiration dates in 2008 back in 2005 when the privacy service happened, they probably would have ended up in an auction without my even knowing. I will never knowingly use a whois proxy service.

Zombie Registrar that sounds like Registerfly alright.
Seems like saving all those few hundred support tickets was worth it !
I hope others have done the same.
Whois protection is just one part in the design of the registerfly scam machine.

Wow.... an automated rippoff machine, what more does a cyber criminal need? but a blind watchdog with no teeth.