新网互联域名转出受阻投诉信
Dear Sirs,
I am the domain owner of BIZEDU.NET. Recently I decided to transfer my domain to GoDaddy.com, INC. only to find that the transfer endeavor was more than difficult due to some unfriendly business behaviors from the losing registrar, BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. What this business entity has done frustrated me this morning by its email reply declining my request to transfer my domain as well as by its previous promise (which obviously contradicts to the declining email) made via phone communications about one week ago. BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY’s ignorance of customers’ rights and benefits constitutes a dangerous challenge towards ICANN’s policy and philosophy.
I write this complaint to report the following perceived misconduct by BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. in the hope that ICANN/InterNIC could examine the whole issue and help me complete the transfer currently denied by BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. with unreasonable excuses.
-
I decided to transfer my domain to GoDaddy.com, INC a week ago, so I contacted one of BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY’s agent who told me to download an official application form, fill it out and send directly to it Beijing Headquarters with a hard copy of my personal photo ID. I sent the package on November 10, 2010 to its Beijing office but I later heard that ICANN does not require a domain owner to present the application form or individual’s personal photo ID. Also, according to relevant laws and regulations on the mainland of China, these business entities do NOT have the right to retain citizen’s photo ID which can be improperly used and incur unpredicted risks towards individuals. Since BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. is in cooperation with ICANN/InterNIC, I was wondering if ICANN could explain the necessity of this photo ID copy submission requirement.
-
In my previous consulting phone call to BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD., its staff member gave me instructions on how to fill out the application form. She told me that (1)I should add my signature to show my approval (which I did exactly as told), (2)the company will contact the agent to provide an official seal to complete the rest procedures, and (3)I just wait for the transfer (Oh, yes, I am now still waiting).
I have done what were told one week ago but today’s declining email from BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY showed clearly its reasons as quoted below:
A. my signature is not beautiful/recognizable; B. transfer application form does not contain their agent’s seal; and C. the application form is NOT qualified.
I felt angry because I was misled by the company’s previous instructions and by its inconsistent and even contradictive email reply. The purpose of the signature is to verify my approval of the transfer rather than to be read as letters in a child’s textbook. No banks or government agencies ever scolded me for my signature even if it is really ugly! The signature is manually signed, and should not be typed by machines. My carefully signed signature should NOT be discriminated anyway.
I obeyed its instructions to send the application package but they seemed to deliberately ‘forget’ the agent’s seal. According the phone call a week ago, the company will contact its agent for that seal but now the company said I did not provide the seal. I am NOT the agent so how could I provide something that should have been provided and presented ONLY by BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. itself? As ICANN’s partner, BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY is misleading its customers and on purpose creating troubles for customers. I don’t think such unethical behavior should be endured by ICANN/InterNIC.
I also cannot see what a qualified application form is. That form is downloaded from BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY’s official website at this URL with its logo and predesigned tables. If such a copy is denied by the company as not qualified, then where can I obtain a qualified form? Not mentioning ICANN does NOT require such a so-called application form, whose purpose as I personally believe is to ultimately cause frustration of customers and thus block the FREE transfer of personal properties originally protected by ICANN’s policy.
To sum it up, I think BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY should first return my copy of personal photo ID to rectify its unreasonable requirement because it is NOT a legitimate organization to do this, and second provide me with my Auth Code so that I can transfer my domain to Godaddy.com, INC as I will.
I attach relevant information below for reference.
简单的分析一下这篇范文：
首先，投诉文开门见山指出域名是域名所有人，即注册商客户的私人财产，但在转移过程中遭到了注册商的无故阻碍，指出这种行为有违ICANN的组织宗旨与政策。西方成熟的国家对于私有财产的保护是相当严格的，因而对新网互联违反商业精神并且以欺骗手段达到目的的违规做法绝不会容忍。
其次，询问ICANN是否可解释有关域名所有人必须提交个人身份证明及涉及隐私信息材料的要求的必须性。由于这项要求在ICANN的相关政策中是不存在的，完全由国内域名注册商制定，因而ICANN对无法解释的商业政策规则方面的内容会相当敏感。
继而对新网互联称域名所有人签名潦草无法辨认的诡辩行为给出反击，并告知ICANN即便是签名潦草甚至难看亦不得受到一家商业机构的歧视。对于合作伙伴歧视消费者的行为，西方成熟经济体制下的公司同样不会容忍，也不敢承担由此带来的后果。
接着回述与新网互联之前的客服沟通记录，指出拒绝信在原则和事实上均与客服的官方指导意见矛盾，从而暴露了公司不诚信的一面，那么这样的战略合作伙伴是否值得ICANN在今后继续考虑合作可能性？换句话说，ICANN怎么会选择这样无商业伦理的公司，与这样的无良公司合作岂非令自己成为一丘之貉吗？为维护这个非营利组织的权威性，ICANN必然不可能轻视中国境内注册商破坏商业伦理的行为。
最后回顾拒绝信中提到所谓的“不合格”问题，澄清该文档模板由新网互联官方下载，以所谓“不合格”为由拒绝客户提出的转移申请是在故意设置障碍，这是对受ICANN政策保护的消费者私人财产的自由转移权的破坏。自由是西方成熟社会中受普遍尊重的个人诉求，而若ICANN无法保护本在其政策覆盖下的消费者自由权益，那将被视为是新网互联对ICANN权威的极大挑战。
投诉信末尾除了列出相关域名的WHOIS信息，还在总结中要求新网互联归还那并不需要的个人身份证复印件。实际上，这份材料是不会被退还的，写在投诉信中，只是为多一个砝码，虽然之后发现其实没有必要（已有的投诉内容已经足够完善）。