Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The ICANN87 Paradox: A Plenary on “Registrant Recourse” vs. the Reality of Case #01448650 – Part I
ICANN87 has just ended. One of its most prominent themes was registrant protection and the gap in registrant recourse — discussed on stage, in plenary, with the ICANN CEO and President himself noting that registrants must take their issues to their registrar or registry.
See https://gac.icann.org/sessions/icann87-community-plenary-2-the-gap-in-registrant-recourse-next-steps
So let’s test that proposition against a real case.
My case: malaysia.build — ICANN Compliance Case #01448650 — 502+ days and counting. See https://loss.co (MYT)
-
- The domain was paid, active, and under auto-renewal, valid through April 29, 2024.
- It was removed with nearly five months left before expiry.
- Namecheap confirmed in writing (July 14, 2025) that no EPP code was requested — yet the domain left.
- No prior notice was given to me by Namecheap, eNom, or the .build Registry.
- My formal demand was sent September 26, 2025 to domainsupport@namecheap.com, legal@namecheap.com, and support@namecheap.com, eNom Legal/compliance, with ICANN compliance, ombudsman, and global support cc’d. No substantive reply has ever been received. See https://loss.co/namecheap-enom-build-registry-complete-email-trail/#269.
eNom’s – https://loss.co/namecheap-enom-build-registry-complete-email-trail/#269447
- ICANN’s Ombudsman will not take the case until Compliance concludes; Compliance has not concluded. Catch-22.
See https://www.namepros.com/threads/is-your-domain-truly-secure-my-experience-raises-serious-questions.1362731/page-18#post-9590185, https://www.namepros.com/threads/is-your-domain-truly-secure-my-experience-raises-serious-questions.1362731/page-26#post-9635468 and https://loss.co/responses/#ombuds.
After ICANN87, has anything changed in how Namecheap and eNom serve me? I’ll let the readers judge and decide for themselves — the attached transcripts speak for themselves.
The attached transcripts document what “registrant protection” looks like in practice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1etRuLLJRh9sJqm4UpLfuOYRYomhaEVkP/view
Namecheap — 26 Oct 2026 (177 unanswered questions):
- Across multiple agents (Inna B., Sindhuja S., Dharani S.), the same script: “This type of request can’t be handled via chat. Please send the details over email.”
- I had already sent the email — over a year earlier. When I asked where the reply was, the instruction was simply repeated. See https://loss.co/namecheap-enom-build-registry-complete-email-trail/#269
- Asked whether the “email us” instruction was a lie — offered Yes / No / “I don’t know” — no answer, 177 times.
- One agent claimed “Our team has already contacted you via email with a detailed response,” then could not identify the email, then pointed to “Domain Transferred out: malaysia.build” — an email I was previously told was a mistake.
See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MQPmtTx_wlqWoAwEn6IK2_55zQxIAiU-/view
Time: 14:37:35
Agent: Nikilesh S.
Exact Quote: “The email you received was sent to you by mistake.”
(Note: In this same chat, at 14:43:57, you directly address this, stating: “The email was sent by mistake? After 462+ days, you asked me to confirm an agreed amount I never agreed to. Now you call it a mistake?”)- Agents left the chat mid-question, repeatedly. One left, rejoined, and said “Welcome back!” without answering why she had left.
- Asked directly whether this is the standard practice of Namecheap’s registrant protection, as discussed at ICANN87 — no answer. By silence and refusal, effectively yes.
eNom — 25 Oct 2026 (Warren):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I8z36fPQO7Vn8V3y7Uy0faiLKfsg7Rp5/view
- Asked why eNom ignored my email (sent Oct 8, 2026, with ICANN case #01448650 in the subject): “Please email legal@enom.com.” See https://loss.co/namecheap-enom-build-registry-complete-email-trail/#enom-email
- I had already done so. Response: “This is the support team not the compliance team. We cannot do anything here, you may email them again or wait for their reply.”
- Asked whether this is the standard practice of eNom serving its customers: silence, then “Please email compliance team, have a good day” — and the chat was ended.
- A second attempt to reach a live agent ended with: “It looks like we couldn’t connect you to a live advisor. I can help you create a support ticket.”
The .build Registry: zero response since day one.
See https://loss.co/responses/#build
So here is my question to ICANN — asked in good faith, after ICANN87:
1. Registrant protection was spoken out loud on stage at ICANN87. In reality, what action is being taken against registrars and registries — Namecheap, eNom, and the .build Registry — that fail to respond to a registrant for over 500 days?
2. What does “registrant recourse” mean when the registrar says “email us,” the registry never replies, and the Ombudsman defers to Compliance, which never concludes? To date, Oct 26, 2026, I have never received any closure of my case from ICANN Compliance — no conclusion, no decision, no final notice.
3. ICANN, I have sent multiple emails — some over a year ago — to compliance@icann.org, ombudsman@icann.org, and globalsupport@icann.org. To date, I have not received your reply. Are you going to reply to me or not?
See https://loss.co/responses/#icann
4. And what about ICANN’s own registrant protection, as discussed at ICANN87 — does it apply to Case #01448650, or is the plenary a conversation that ends when the microphones are switched off?
The full record, including the transcripts attached here and the complete email trail, is published at https://loss.co.
I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking whether the words spoken at ICANN87 have any operational consequence — for Namecheap, for eNom, for the .build Registry, and for ICANN itself.
Always answer the questions.
Regards,
Wong Tai Chiew
Malaysian Citizen | Registrant Documenting the Evidence
Oct 26, 2026 (MYT)
Namecheap Ticket ID: NC-UWS-6390
ICANN Compliance Case: #01448650External engagement includes:
California Attorney General — Consumer complaint filed (PIU #1513499)
National Economic Council (White House) — Governance briefing submitted
eConsumer.gov (ICPEN) — International case logged
Federal Trade Commission — Report #195289817
Arizona Attorney General — CIC #25-020223
Better Business Bureau — Case #24334069 (closed Jan 13, 2026 after unanswered outreach to Namecheap)
International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. Department of Commerce – International case loggedICANN87 Discusses Registrant Protections. Will ICANN Respond to a Registrant?
@ICANN, ICANN87 in Bali is discussing registrant protections, access to recourse, and accountability. I am a domain name registrant, and I have a straightforward question for ICANN.
Will ICANN Contractual Compliance respond to my email of 9 September 2026 concerning Case #01448650?
The case was opened on 11 July 2025. As of 20 October 2026, it has been open for 466+ days, and the issues I have raised remain unresolved from my perspective.
This is not the first time I have sought an answer. I have asked the same fundamental questions countless times on social media, particularly on X, and to date, I have received no response from ICANN to those public questions.
I am not asking ICANN to agree with my position without reviewing the evidence. I am asking for a substantive response to my correspondence and a clear explanation of the case’s status.
What Does Registrant Protection Mean in Practice?
On ICANN’s official Facebook page (facebook.com/icannorg), ICANN87’s stated objectives include:
“…examine existing mechanisms for domain name registrants to seek recourse, identify gaps in current practices, and discuss concrete steps toward improving access to meaningful recourse.”
ICANN’s messaging also highlights:
“…celebrate collaboration, shared responsibility, and the power of the multistakeholder approach.”
These are the principles ICANN itself has chosen to communicate.
My experience with Case #01448650 raises a question that deserves a clear answer: if a registrant submits extensive correspondence and supporting records but still cannot obtain a satisfactory explanation or resolution, what effective avenue of recourse is available?
Does this experience reveal a gap between the objectives being discussed at ICANN87 and the practical experience of at least one registrant? If not, how should a registrant understand the process and its outcome?
What Happens When a Registrant Seeks Further Review?
I also approached the ICANN Ombudsman’s office and was informed that it could not open an investigation into my case.
I recognise that the Ombudsman has a defined mandate and that not every complaint necessarily falls within its jurisdiction. However, this leaves me with a legitimate question:
When Contractual Compliance does not resolve a registrant’s concerns to their satisfaction, and the Ombudsman cannot investigate, what practical route remains for the registrant to obtain an independent review or a clear explanation?
I am not asking ICANN to prejudge the merits of my case. I am asking ICANN to explain how its accountability and recourse mechanisms are intended to work in circumstances such as these.
A Direct Request to ICANN
ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha, President and CEO Kurtis Lindqvist, and Indonesia’s Minister Meutya Hafid have helped set the tone for ICANN87, with its emphasis on meaningful discussions and collective action.
Those discussions provide an opportunity to demonstrate that registrant protection is more than an agenda item.
ICANN Contractual Compliance: will you please acknowledge and substantively respond to my email of 9 September 2026 concerning Case #01448650?
If a response has already been issued, please identify it. If the case remains under review, please explain its current status and the next procedural steps available to me. If no further action will be taken, please explain the reasons and identify any applicable review or escalation mechanism.
I invite ICANN’s leadership and the relevant team to respond publicly or directly by email. A clear response would help not only me, but also others seeking to understand how registrant protections work in practice.
Registrant protection should be measured not only by what is discussed at ICANN87, but also by whether registrants can obtain clear, meaningful answers when they seek recourse.
My question remains simple: ICANN, will you respond?
Case correspondence and supporting records:
Case-duration counter:
—
@ICANN — a question about your transparency policy.
I posted a comment on ICANN’s official Facebook page asking one question: what is the status of ICANN Compliance Case #01448650?
The post is visible to me. It is not visible to anyone else.
Video evidence, recorded 20 Oct 2026: https://youtu.be/tFIjFUpEUZo
ICANN87 is discussing “registrant protections” and “meaningful recourse.” Does ICANN’s transparency policy cover what happens to a registrant’s question when it is posted on ICANN’s own page?
The challenge
A test anyone can run.
I have posted twice on ICANN’s official Facebook page, asking one question: what is the status of ICANN Compliance Case #01448650?
Both posts are visible on my account. I would like to know whether they are visible on yours.
Log in to your own Facebook account and try to find them:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ZdGSVzyGk/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18iVrDtRnV/
Then tell me what you see. Found them, or not found. A reply of “not found” is as useful to me as a reply of “found.”
Cc: @NTIAgov @MCMC_RASMI — because a Malaysian country-name domain is the subject, and because I am a Malaysian citizen.
#ICANN #ICANNCompliance #ICANNCase01448650 #DomainRights #RegistrantRights #Accountability #Transparency #DoYourJob #InternetGovernance #Namecheap #Enom #BUILDRegistry #Malaysia #ConsumerRights #WorldIsWatching
The Admission That Broke The Wall (Part 3t) – 463 Days, Two Emails to ICANN, Zero Response. Is Silence ICANN’s Value and Culture?
This is Part 3t of a case that began on NamePros.
To understand the full context — the timeline, the correspondence, and the earlier exchanges — please read the NamePros thread first
The following post continues directly from that thread and assumes that background.
ICANN Compliance Case #01448650
Opened: July 11, 2025
Days since opened: 463+ and counting (MYT)
Status: No resolution. No enforcement. No substantive reply.I have sent two detailed emails to multiple ICANN departments — Compliance, Ombudsman, CEO, Board, GAC, ALAC, Global Support, media, and press. Both contained documented evidence. Both asked for a status update and enforcement action.
To date: zero substantive response from ICANN.
The complete ICANN Contractual Compliance email trail is published here:
I encourage readers to make their own judgment:
- ICANN is the regulator. ICANN wrote the RAA 2013. If ICANN does not enforce its own rules, what exactly is the point of a regulator that does not regulate?
- ICANN is US-based. If non-response is the standard for a foreign registrant, what does that say about the value and culture being exported?
- Registrants and registrars pay ICANN — directly or indirectly. What exactly are registrants paying ICANN for, if not enforcement, accountability, and a functioning compliance process?
- Does ICANN know where its staff salaries come from?
- If ICANN cannot respond to a documented complaint for 463+ days, and cannot answer a sovereign regulator’s questions, can the multi-stakeholder model be trusted at all?
The world is watching.
The questions are not going away.
Always answer the questions.
Regards,
Wong Tai Chiew
Malaysian Citizen | Registrant Documenting the Evidence
Oct 17, 2026 (MYT)
Namecheap Ticket ID: NC-UWS-6390
ICANN Compliance Case: #01448650External engagement includes:
California Attorney General — Consumer complaint filed (PIU #1513499)
National Economic Council (White House) — Governance briefing submitted
eConsumer.gov (ICPEN) — International case logged
Federal Trade Commission — Report #195289817
Arizona Attorney General — CIC #25-020223
Better Business Bureau — Case #24334069 (closed Jan 13, 2026 after unanswered outreach to Namecheap)
International Trade Administration (ITA), U.S. Department of Commerce – International case logged -
