Of ICANN and the Registerfly meltdown

What needs to be done


Comment The scorn heaped upon ICANN recently for its laissez faire attitude toward customer allegations of fraud by its accredited registrar Registerfly - a scandal in which ICANN spent the better part of a year repeatedly referring customers back to Registerfly, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of misconduct - has forced ICANN to acknowledge that it is responsible for holding its accredited registrars to certain ethical standards. Well, it's a start.

For those, however, whose domains were lost through either neglect or malfeasance on the part of Registerfly, and whose domains are now occupied by cybersquatters, the loss of a business or personal website formerly hosted by Registerfly still burns.

Although ICANN recently issued an ultimatum to Registerfly, threatening to pull its accreditation unless it resolved its myriad customer service issues within two weeks time, the fact remains that pulling the accreditation of a negligent or possibly even criminal registrar is a merely a prophylactic measure - it may prevent future harm, but does nothing to resolve the property rights of those whose internet based businesses have vanished into cyberspace.

The fact is, Registerfly is not alone, and ICANN needs to develop some kind procedural safeguards to ensure that disputed domains are not inadvertantly auctioned off to the first bidder before this happens again.

Although ICANN rightly claims that allegations of monetary damages due to fraud or negligence need to be addressed by local authorities, the integrity of the domain system itself needs to be protected by ICANN - that, after all, is why ICANN takes a cut of every domain registration fee.

Whether or not local or federal authorities choose to prosecute Registerfly - and the rumors flying indicate that both the FBI and the Secret Service are involved now - jilted customers cannot expect the FBI, for example, just to hand over the control of a domain name that might now be owned by bona fide purchaser on the other side of the world. It's not like stolen silverware or jewelry - the only way for the authorities to return control of the domain would be to get a court order against, um... that group, the one that controls domain registration...oh yeah, ICANN.

At the very minimum, ICANN needs to be proactive here and develop a system for holding disputed domains in trust until the rightful owner can be determined. Even better would be a formal dispute resolution system with investigative power to follow up on serious allegations and nip them in the bud. Mr. Zupke, ICANN's go between with the accredited registrars, cannot police cyberspace alone.

ICANN performs a function in cyberspace somewhat analogous to the hall of records in a local community, organizing and documenting property rights. If ICANN feels that enforcing certain ethical standards on its partners runs counter to its bureaucratic instincts, it could still subcontract out such enforcement to a third party security group, much as it subcontracts out domain registration to groups like Registerfly.

The Registerfly fiasco has laid clear for all to see the inadequacies of the current registrar accreditation system, and the need for reform. There's no time like the present. ®

Burke Hansen, attorney at large, heads a San Francisco law office

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022