news Domain registrants are guilty until proven innocent, say UK cops

[News]

UK police have stated an eyebrow-raising “guilty until proven innocent” point of view when it comes to domain name registrations, in comments filed recently with ICANN.

Internet governance efforts by Industry, most notably the ICANN 2013 RAA agreement have seen a paradigm shift in Industry in the way a domain name is viewed as “suspicious” before being validated as “good” within the 15 day period of review.

UK law enforcement’s view is that a 45 day period would revert Industry back to a culture of viewing domains “good” until they are proven “bad” therefore allowing crime to propagate and increase harm online...

Read More

 

[pablohc86]

to my eyes if police consider guilty who provides inaccurate information to the whois, it is only a benefit for honest domainers

 

[BhuvaneshKV]

nice share..

 

[HeyNow]

What do you expect? The domain investor industry history is replete with examples of auction fraud, auctioneer employees with inside information stealthily bidding against clueless outside bidders, shill-bidding, typosquatters heralded by the major domain "news" webrags as shining examples of what we should aspire to, domainer conventions where the scoundrels of the industry are actually given some sort of compensation to speak to the attendees, and on and on and on.

If I were an outsider looking in, I'd also not give domainers the benefit of the doubt. As a matter of fact, I'm not an outsider and I STILL don't trust the current crop of hype merchants, auctioneers, auction platforms, and their respective employees as far as I can spit.

There's a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset outside the domainer world regarding domainers, because we've truly earned their skepticism. They see exactly what I've mentioned here. They're not stupid.

Have you noticed how the domainer conventions have lost big-name talent? Steve Forbes actually gave it a shot. You don't see him anymore. I believe he got a whiff of what was really going on, and figured perhaps he'd try again if and when the industry cleaned up its act. Perhaps in about 100 years. What you DO see is the scoundrels in the industry participating as important players, instead of being shunned by the community.

I'll bring up Snapnames again here. I'm really good at that. I need to remind you that, as far as I know, no one ever went to jail. You or I steal a few thousand dollars worth of property from someone and we're in jail for at least a year, right? Not in THIS business. Perhaps Nelson Brady will be asked to speak at the next domainer convention. Perhaps the domain "news" sites (including the ones who still include Snapnames as a reputable source) will spotlight his accomplishments and hold him up as a shining example of what we should aspire to. IMHO, that's not out of the realm of possibility.There are still comparisons between Snapnames and Namejet, Snapnames and Flippa, Snapnames and Godaddy, as if hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars reaped from auction fraud never even happened. We continue to lump those with documented fraud in their histories with those entities having clean histories. Our judgement as a whole stinks. Fools we are.

"Guilty until proven innocent." Well earned.

 

[Ms Domainer]

As far as slimy business practices, I'd stack the Wall Street crooks against any small-time domainers -- these grand manipulators nearly brought down the world economy back in 2008, and they may be posed to actually succeed in doing so for real (Come back to this thread in 24 hours or so).

Yes, there is a lot wrong with our business, but if you look under the rock of any field, you'll find the underbelly sliming around.

And, yes, there is much wrong with our biz. Like any Wild West, domaining tends to draw people whose ethics (shall I say?) are a bit lacking. I don't think that applies to all of us, though -- there are many reasons to get into domaining that don't involve sleazy practices.

But, in truth, most domainers, honest and otherwise, are small potatoes when you take into account the amount of real power that domainers possess.

 

[HeyNow]

As far as slimy business practices, I'd stack the Wall Street crooks against any small-time domainers -- these grand manipulators nearly brought down the world economy back in 2008, and they may be posed to actually succeed in doing so for real (Come back to this thread in 24 hours or so).

Wall Street is legal gambling. Wall Street is regulated. Wall Street has substantial history.

The domainer and domain auction businesses are still in their infancy, and are at the most crucial time to demonstrate to the world whether they are trustworthy and ethical or the opposite. So far, the opposite prevails because the guilty go unpunished. Crooks and auction fraudsters belong in jail, not speaking at domainer conventions. Companies that fail to prosecute their own employees who are responsible for stealing customers' money lead us to believe perhaps more perpetrators were involved, and perhaps still work there today. That's what I believe.

Now, digest this: Auction companies and auction platforms that today allow their own employees to bid, stealthily, against outside buyers, knowing full well the history of the Snapnames shill-bidding scandal, are, in my humble opinion, banking on the stupidity and ignorance of the domainer pool. It's a cynical aspect of the business model, and for obvious reasons not an aspect they are willing to change. There must be $$$ in it. That sort of policy could be stopped in about 10 minutes during the next employee meeting. The employee handbook could be amended in about 30 minutes or less. But for some reason, no change.

Now many of you couldn't care less. Good for you. But don't expect any measure of credibility from the mainstream business community while you care less. Also, don't expect anyone to hand you a tissue to dry your tears if you feel that you've been fleeced out of a substantial amount of cash. Not saying you'll definitely be fleeced, but it seems a lack of transparency, along with questionable policies in place, allows for that eventuality.

 

[Ms Domainer]

Wall Street is legal gambling. Wall Street is regulated. Wall Street has substantial history.

The domainer and domain auction businesses are still in their infancy, and are at the most crucial time to demonstrate to the world whether they are trustworthy and ethical or the opposite. So far, the opposite prevails because the guilty go unpunished. Crooks and auction fraudsters belong in jail, not speaking at domainer conventions. Companies that fail to prosecute their own employees who are responsible for stealing customers' money lead us to believe perhaps more perpetrators were involved, and perhaps still work there today. That's what I believe.

Now, digest this: Auction companies and auction platforms that today allow their own employees to bid, stealthily, against outside buyers, knowing full well the history of the Snapnames shill-bidding scandal, are, in my humble opinion, banking on the stupidity and ignorance of the domainer pool. It's a cynical aspect of the business model, and for obvious reasons not an aspect they are willing to change. There must be $$$ in it. That sort of policy could be stopped in about 10 minutes during the next employee meeting. The employee handbook could be amended in about 30 minutes or less. But for some reason, no change.

Now many of you couldn't care less. Good for you. But don't expect any measure of credibility from the mainstream business community while you care less. Also, don't expect anyone to hand you a tissue to dry your tears if you feel that you've been fleeced out of a substantial amount of cash. Not saying you'll definitely be fleeced, but it seems a lack of transparency, along with questionable policies in place, allows for that eventuality.

Not one Wall Street manipulator went to prison; instead, their institutions were rewarded with huge bailouts, and business goes on as usual with the same criminals awarded huge salaries.

So how is that regulation thingy working out for us?

Having said this, I suspect that most honest domainers DO care about what is going on in our biz and would like to see it cleaned up. My Scamful [dot] com site tries to expose the slimy underbelly. I would love for the Web [dot] com companies to be reined in.

And, HeyNow, don't get me wrong; I, for one, do appreciate your persistence -- our industry does need the whistle blowers and reminders of our past history.

Unfortunately, you may pay a high price for your candor --

I hope not (I'm assuming that you are hiding your real identity, which is fine by me, and I would never try to dig...)

 

[HeyNow]

Not one Wall Street manipulator went to prison;

I'm surprised at your statement. You've always struck me as a knowledgeable, informed individual. I also believe we live in close proximity to one another, but I digress.

Here's a very small partial listing of Wall Street players who went to prison, or performed such egregious acts that laws were made because of them:

1) Bernie Madoff (150 year sentence)
2) Bruno Iksil (
3) Allen Stanford (110 year sentence)
4) Jordon Belfort (served nearly two years in prison)
5) Jeff Skilling (currently serving 14 year sentence)
6) Ivan Boesky (served 22 months of a 3 year sentence)
7) Martha Stewart (insider trading, 5 months in prison)
8) Bernard Ebbers (25 year sentence)

Personally, I like Martha Stewart's sentence for first time domain auction cheats. Insider trading, to me, seems akin to auctioneer employees bidding stealthily against outside, clueless bidders, driving up prices artificially, utilizing inside information to know how high a clueless sheep is willing to bid.

Here's an article about hundreds of Wall Street execs going to jail for the Wall Street banking crisis of the 1980's: http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hu...son-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

That article compares the lack of prosecutions in the most recent Wall Street scandal of a few years ago to the high number of prosecutions in the 1980's.

My point is, throughout Wall Street history, plenty of scoundrels have done time for fraud. It's true, plenty of Wall Street scoundrels who probably should be in jail are walking around free, but so far, I cannot think of even one domain auction cheat who has been sent to jail. Not one.

For you to proffer here that "not one Wall Street manipulator went to prison" is absolutely ridiculous. The FACTS speak otherwise, with all due respect. And I mean that.

 

[Ms Domainer]

I'm talking about the 2008 meltdown -- who during that time when the world economy nearly went belly up was actually convicted and sent to jail?

It seems that information is fuzzy:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303505504577401911741048088​

Who from Countrywide?

Okay, this: "On June 4, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged former CEO Angelo Mozilo with insider trading and securities fraud, and former COO David Sambol and former CFO Eric Sieracki with securities fraud for failing to disclose Countrywide's lax lending standards in Countrywide's 2006 annual report.

Despite these charges, Countrywide, and then its successor Bank of America, were awarded the Property Management contract with the Veterans Administration. A July 22, 2008 memo from Judith Caden, VA Director of Loan Guaranty Service issued this proclamation in Circular 26-08-10. Bank of America still retained this position with VA until 2011."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Home_Loans​

From AIG?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group​

From Lehman Brothers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers​

From Goldman Sachs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs​

Not much convicting going on at that time. Mostly bailouts and CEO's receiving large bonuses.

Of course I know that before and after the 2008 meltdown some Wall Streeters have headed for the clink, but those convictions were especially egregious instances that couldn't be explained away or ignored. Authorities had no choice but to haul Bernie Madoff and other bad boys and girls into court.

After the 2008 meltdown, excuses were offered for the bad behavior, and they were pretty much off the hook and given huge bailouts with the excuse "Too big to fail."

If you or I pulled the same crap, we'd be hauled off to the clink, ASAP.

 

[HeyNow]

I'm talking about the 2008 meltdown -- who during that time when the world economy nearly went belly up was actually convicted and sent to jail?

It seems that information is fuzzy:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303505504577401911741048088​

Who from Countrywide?

Okay, this: "On June 4, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charged former CEO Angelo Mozilo with insider trading and securities fraud, and former COO David Sambol and former CFO Eric Sieracki with securities fraud for failing to disclose Countrywide's lax lending standards in Countrywide's 2006 annual report.

Despite these charges, Countrywide, and then its successor Bank of America, were awarded the Property Management contract with the Veterans Administration. A July 22, 2008 memo from Judith Caden, VA Director of Loan Guaranty Service issued this proclamation in Circular 26-08-10. Bank of America still retained this position with VA until 2011."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Home_Loans​

From AIG?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group​

From Lehman Brothers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers​

From Goldman Sachs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs​

Not much convicting going on at that time. Mostly bailouts and CEO's receiving large bonuses.

Of course I know that before and after the 2008 meltdown some Wall Streeters have headed for the clink, but those convictions were especially egregious instances that couldn't be explained away or ignored. Authorities had no choice but to haul Bernie Madoff and other bad boys and girls into court.

After the 2008 meltdown, excuses were offered for the bad behavior, and they were pretty much off the hook and given huge bailouts with the excuse "Too big to fail."

If you or I pulled the same crap, we'd be hauled off to the clink, ASAP.

Look, you said no one went to jail for Wall Street shenanigans. I presented evidence proving otherwise, and you respond with something to the effect of no one from Countrywide, no one from 2008, blah blah blah. Okay, you win, Wall Street is much more corrupt than the domain auction world.

But I'll tell you this, I bet your 401K (if you have one), or any retirement plan you have, relies on trust in Wall Street performance, and not by the performance and/or your trust in Snapnames or Flippa. Just sayin'.

 

[Ms Domainer]

I really did mean during the meltdown, and it's my bad that I wasn't clear.

It's just that when Wall Street goes bad, it has a MAJOR impact on the world markets and can send the world economy into a tailspin.

And in 2008 it crashed in a big way; we personally lost a chunk of money from our conservative portfolio, along with millions of others. Yes, it did come back, but had we been retired at the time, this would have been a disaster for our future.

So I'm definitely more concerned about Wall Street than I am about domaining auction houses, where my losses are limited (I no longer bid at Snap or Namejet, though).

When an auction house like Snapnames goes rogue, the effect is more local and contained to a specific field. I don't want to minimize the impact that the Snapnames corrupt auctions had on individuals -- it sucked for those people -- and the perps involved should have been hauled into court. But it's nothing compared to the major brokerage houses that had to be bailed out by the government.

As much as those bailouts galled me at the time, had the government said "Deal with it," I think we'd be seeing a much different economy now, and it wouldn't have been pretty.

I just wish more of the CEOs who nearly brought down our system would have gone to jail because they really have no incentive to stop doing those things that nearly ruined this economy. In fact, they were rewarded handsomely.

To be fair, today's meltdown has more to do with the Chinese economy than Wall Street itself, but I sure hope some government watchdog is keeping an eye on it.

No, I don't trust Wall Street.

But I do like you, HeyNow; you say what you mean, and I agree with you more than you might know.

 

[dordomai]

I think that is only "theoretical" and means very little in practice. They only "confirm" that the email address is valid, as if that would make any difference.

So what's the problem? Is it so hard to get an email address and have a confirmation link sent you that you have to click? Most criminals would be stopped by that if the reduce the allowed time to confirm to 15 days? Nope.

from the comments:

Phishing and other abuse is “use”.
Whois accuracy is “registration”.

ICANN has a mandate over registration, but not (or only very limited) over use.

Hence a report about incorrect whois details follows a procedure intended to allow registrants to correct these details.

If someone wants to complaint about the use of a domain and wants a quick takedown, whois complaints are not the way to do it.

And 15 days can be a very narrow time window to reach a registrant and hear back from him, especially during vacation time, or in cases of multiple resellers in between the registrant and the registrar.

Obviously the GAC and LEAs have not looked at the arguments behind the change and are just pushing for their agenda, not realizing they are referring to a tool not intended or designed to do what they think it is for.

Wall Street is regulated.

Come on! Domainers are saints when it comes to Wall Street. This only shows that regulations don't matter. Show me a big corporate business that aren't crooks more likely than not they will be. Not sure why everyone thinks that just domainers are soooo bad.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2011/12/17/top-100-corporate-crime-stories-2011

100. SEC Delivers First Non Pros Baby
99. Simon Johnson: Break Up the Big Banks
98. Grassley Asks: Why are Health Care Fraud Cases Stagnating?
97. Guidant to Pay $296 Million for FDA Crimes
96. Former Chase Bank Official Convicted of Taking Bribes
95. Oregon Sues Johnson & Johnson for Phatom Recall of Motrin
94. Grain Elevator Deaths Due to Lax OSHA Enforcement
93. Insider Trading Defendants Avoid Jail in 44 Percent of Cases
92. Lockheed to Pay $2 Million to Resolve False Claims Charge
91. Grossman Drafts Legislation to Criminalize the Corporate Form
90. Pentagon Spent Billions on Companies that Committed Fraud
89. Legal Challenge to Blanket Immunity in BAE Settlement
88. Maxwell Gets FCPA Prosecution Deferred, Pays $8 Million Criminal Fine
87. Nader Calls Jeep Grand Cherokee Modern Day Pinto for Soccer Moms
86. Oracle to Pay $46 Million To Settle False Claims Charge
85. Coalition: Negligent Doctors and Big Pharma Should Not Be Shielded
84. Chevron Found Guilty in Ecuador, Fined $9 Billion
83. Tyson Foods Gets Prosecution Deferred, Pays $4 Million FCPA Fine
82. Rolling Stone: Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?
81. Criminal Investigation Against Mozilo Closed
80. Horizon Lines to Plead Guilty, Pay $45 Million Criminal Fine
79. Walmart State and Local Tax Avoidance Exceeds $400 Million Annually
78. Wheelchair Fraud Results in $6 Million Fine
77. Feds Intervene in False Claims Case against KBR
76. Jack Abramoff, Whipping Boy
75. HHS Fines Cignet Health $4.3 Million
74. Arch Coal to Pay $4 Million
73. Forest Pharma Hit with $145 in Criminal Penalties
72. Goldman Sachs Board Member Charged with Insider Trading

Cybercrime is not domaining and has very little to do with domaining. Of course there are some "domainers" that do things that are against the law but cybercrime is a far bigger and much different problem. The changes are not being made because of domainers.