Namecheap, eNom and their strange approach to fraudulent sites

Namecheap's approach to fraudulent sites is novel to say the least. A fraudulent site that they host or register themselves is suspended quickly, for which they are to be rightly commended, but when acting as a reseller for eNom, which is how they began their business, any email reporting abuse to eNom as the listed Registrar on the domain whois, is quickly forwarded to Namecheap who will, most often, just as quickly deny any and all responsibility for the fraudulent domain, with the following email:

"Hello,

Thank you for your email regarding the domain name (insert fraudulent site name). While the domain name does have Namecheap.com as the registrar, we do not have the ability to oversee what data are being transmitted through its site. We do not own the domain name mentioned in your complaint, we are simply the registrar that the registrant purchased the domain name from.

The issue would need to be addressed through the hosting provider to see if their terms of service have been violated, and would need to be addressed through the domain registrant as they should be the individual that would control what particular content is being exchanged. We have no way to police these issues as we do not control the hosting company in this instance.

While I understand your issue, we are not in a position where we can make determination of validity of your statements. If you believe you are the victim of an internet crime, or if you are aware of an attempted crime, you can file a complaint through Internet Crime Complaint Center at https://complaint.ic3.gov. You also may contact either your lawyer(s) or the local authorities in order get the issue resolved. We will assist them any way we can."

Lets pick this reply apart.

"While the domain name does have Namecheap.com as the registrar,"

Well the domain might not, if Namecheap is acting as reseller for eNom. But Namecheap is an accredited Registrar, and this is just a form letter, so this part of the May 2013 RAA with ICANN, that both eNom and Namecheap have, applies.

"3.12 Obligations Related to Provision of Registrar Services by Third Parties. Registrar is responsible for the provision of Registrar Services for all Registered Names that Registrar sponsors being performed in compliance with this Agreement, regardless of whether the Registrar Services are provided by Registrar or a third party, including a Reseller. Registrar must enter into written agreements with all of its Resellers that enable Registrar to comply with and perform all of its obligations under this Agreement."

So when Namecheap is listed as reseller for the domain and eNom is listed as the Registrar, under the RAA eNom is still responsible, even though Namecheap is an accredited Registrar themselves.

"we do not have the ability to oversee what data are being transmitted through its site."

I understand that abuse teams are busy, but they could just take a minute to look at the site that has been reported to them as being fraudulent, couldn't they?
After all, their RAA with ICANN also includes the following:

"3.18 Registrar's Abuse Contact and Duty to Investigate Reports of Abuse.
3.18.1 Registrar shall maintain an abuse contact to receive reports of abuse involving Registered Names sponsored by Registrar, including reports of Illegal Activity. Registrar shall publish an email address to receive such reports on the home page of Registrar's website (or in another standardized place that may be designated by ICANN from time to time). Registrar shall take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately to any reports of abuse."

From the FAQ's about the 2013 RAA:

"26. Section 3.18.2 provides that well-founded reports of Illegal Activity submitted to the registrar must be reviewed within 24 hours by an individual who is empowered by Registrar to take necessary and appropriate actions in response to the report. In responding to any such reports, Registrar will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law. What does "well-founded" mean?

ICANN will consider this on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as substantiation, demonstration, corroboration or evidence of Illegal Activity, but cannot specify in any particular circumstance what qualifies as "well-founded" as that may vary based upon the situation. If the registrar believes the request is not "well-founded," it should document the reasons for this decision."

Which seems pretty clear. Registrars have a responsibility to investigate any reports of abuse, so long as those claims can be backed up. With that in mind, lets look at an example.

http://www.unexdc.com/en

Seems legit, right?

I think anyone can see the problem with this site at first glance.

The UN does not run any companies of any sort, let alone 'Express Delivery Companies'. So to say that:

"The issue would need to be addressed through the hosting provider to see if their terms of service have been violated,"

in this case is ducking responsibility. Also, while fraud is generally against most hosting companies Terms of Service, even if some need to be gently reminded of that, that doesn't mean that registrars, Registrars and resellers get to pass the buck fully on to them. In an ideal world the hosting company would suspend the site while the Registrar places the fraudulent domain into ClientHold, to prevent the registrant simply taking his fake site to another hosting company, who may not be as responsive.

"and would need to be addressed through the domain registrant as they should be the individual that would control what particular content is being exchanged."

This is just particularly ill informed. A registrant who registers a clearly  fraudulent site should not be contacted about his content, he is already fully aware of what he's doing, and that it's illegal hasn't stopped him from doing it. Why would he suddenly decide to take it down because I send him an email? There is no telling what his response would be. An attempt to scam me, spamming my email account or attempting to hack my email account, these are all possible options I'd rather avoid.

"While I understand your issue, we are not in a position where we can make determination of validity of your statements."

Again, you could actually read the email, look at the site in question, and see if the claims are valid or not, like the agreement with ICANN states. 

"If you believe you are the victim of an internet crime, or if you are aware of an attempted crime, you can file a complaint through Internet Crime Complaint Center at https://complaint.ic3.gov.You also may contact either your lawyer(s) or the local authorities in order get the issue resolved. We will assist them any way we can"

As I'm not a victim, and the police tend to need victims to prove a crime took place, this is well intentioned, but also pretty useless. Also, I'm sure they have many other more pressing calls on their limited resources than investigating every fraudulent site for registrars and hosting companies, many of which will inevitably fall outside their jurisdiction, such is the nature of the internet, especially when all it often takes is a quick look.