Approved Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 8 March 2026

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.08.01

The Board is taking this action pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2 of the Bylaws. Under Section 4.2, the Board designated the BAMC to review and consider reconsideration requests before making recommendations to the Board on the merits of those requests. See Bylaws Art. 4, Section 4.2(e).

The Board has carefully considered the merits of Request 25-2 and all relevant materials. For the reasons set forth below and set forth more fully in the BAMC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 25-2 (BAMC Recommendation), which is incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Requestor's Complaint was proper, and there is no basis for reconsidering that decision as requested by Request 25-2.

The factual background is set forth in detail in the BAMC Recommendation, which is incorporated here, but, in relevant part, Request 25-2 was submitted by the Requestor seeking reconsideration of Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Complaint. In the Complaint, the Requestor asserted that the Registrar violated the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) by failing to send the Requestor renewal reminders or expiration notices regarding the domain name <hitechbuy.com> (Domain), which the Requestor claimed he registered through a domain name reseller for the Registrar (Reseller). Through its investigation, including review of the materials submitted by the Requestor, Contractual Compliance determined that the Requestor was not the registrant/registered name holder (RNH) for the Domain. None of the Requestor's provided documents listed the Requestor or his company as the registrant—rather, the provided documents consistently listed the Reseller as the RNH for the Domain during the relevant time period. The relevant provisions of the RAA and the ERRP require that a registrar provide expiration reminder notices to the RNH of a domain—they do not require that the registrar send notices to any third-party users or licensees of a domain. After completing its review, Contractual Compliance determined that the Registrar did not violate the RAA or the ERRP and closed the Complaint.

The Board agrees with the BAMC's conclusion that Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Complaint was not based on a failure to consider any material information, but rather was appropriate given the relevant notice provisions under the RAA and the ERRP and the scope of Contractual Compliance's authority. The Requestor contends that Contractual Compliance erred by not requesting a copy of the reseller agreement between the Registrar and the Reseller and other materials related to the Requestor's communications with the Registrar and with the Reseller. However, nothing in the Requestor's Complaint required a review of the reseller agreement or these other materials. In this instance regarding this Domain, the Reseller was not acting on behalf of the Registrar to provide registrar services to the RNH. Rather, the Reseller was the RNH. As such, these further documents, including the existence and/or terms of the Registrar's reseller agreement with the Reseller, were not material to the Complaint. The Board also notes, as did the BAMC, that, to the extent the Requestor contends that the Reseller or the Registrar had obligations to the Requestor despite the fact that he was not the RNH—for example, to the extent that the Requestor claims that the Reseller violated the terms of service in a separate agreement between the Reseller and the Requestor—those claims go beyond the scope of Contractual Compliance's authority, which only extends to enforcement of the requirements set forth in the agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties (registrars and registry operators). Contractual Compliance is unable to intervene in disputes between registrants (such as the Reseller) and third parties (such as the Requestor). Therefore, Contractual Compliance appropriately closed the Complaint; and, because Contractual Compliance considered all material information when it closed the Complaint, reconsideration is not warranted.

Accordingly, the Board agrees with the BAMC Recommendation and the rationale contained therein, which is incorporated by reference here, that there is no basis for reconsidering Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Complaint. The Board's determination is also consistent with the conclusion reached by the Ombuds that "Contractual Compliance, per its established processes, policies and procedures, examined the Requestor's Complaint, and justifiably and correctly […] closed the Complaint." (See Ombuds Evaluation.)

Pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of the Bylaws, the Requestor was provided 15 days from receipt of the BAMC Recommendation to submit a rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation. The BAMC Recommendation, along with the Ombuds Evaluation, was transmitted to the Requestor on 5 February 2026. The Requestor submitted a rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation on 20 February 2026 (Rebuttal).

In the Rebuttal, the Requestor asserts that Contractual Compliance, the Ombuds, and the BAMC all erred in concluding that because the Requestor (the Domain user) was not the RNH of the Domain he was not entitled to any renewal reminders or expiration notices under the RAA or the ERRP. The Board notes, as did the BAMC, that the Requestor has never offered – in the Rebuttal or otherwise – evidence that he was the RNH of the Domain at any relevant time, and the plain language of the RAA and the ERRP makes clear that expiration reminder notices must be sent at designated intervals only to the RNH of an account before cancellation. There is no obligation that notices be sent to any third party user of the domain or licensee of a domain. In arguing his point, the Requestor references a 2022 report that Contractual Compliance provided at the request of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) entitled "ICANN Contractual Compliance Enforcement of the ERRP & EDDP," which was mentioned in the Ombuds Evaluation. The Requestor seems to misunderstand the purpose and scope of that report, which merely offered "ICANN Compliance observations based on the receipt of ERRP/EDDP-related complaints." The report did not make any findings as to a registrar's contractual notice obligations; it simply described issues that had been raised and noted that, under certain circumstances, a domain user may not receive expiration notices if a reseller (not the domain user) was the listed RNH, but the report did not suggest that this would be a violation of the current RAA or ERRP.

The Board also wants to address the Requestor's claim that "[o]ne of the routes to getting certain records and reports that may be useful to me in my litigation against [the Reseller] and/or [the Registrar] is through ICANN Contractual Compliance, and I have a right to use that route." Not only is this incorrect, it is a misuse of the Contractual Compliance complaint process. Submitting a complaint to Contractual Compliance is not and has never been a method for obtaining documents about Registrars—to the contrary, complainants are not entitled to the details of Contractual Compliance's informal resolution processes, which are confidential. Attempting to use the Contractual Compliance process to obtain documents for use in litigation is an improper use of the process.

On 21 February 2026, the Requestor submitted a follow-up to the Rebuttal, which included additional arguments and claims. This was not properly part of the Rebuttal under Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of the Bylaws for several reasons: (1) it extended the Rebuttal length beyond the allowed 10 pages; (2) it was untimely; and (3) it was not limited to rebutting or contradicting the issues raised in the BAMC Recommendation, but instead offered new arguments that the Requestor could have provided in Request 25-2. In any event, the Requestor's supplemental submission does not provide a basis for reconsideration of Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Complaint.

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN is accountable to the community for operating within the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and other established procedures. This accountability includes having a process in place by which a person or entity adversely affected by an action or inaction of the Board or staff may request reconsideration by the Board of that action or inaction.

Adopting the BAMC Recommendation regarding Reconsideration Request 25-2 has no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.08.02

The Board is taking this action pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2 of the Bylaws. Under Section 4.2, the Board designated the BAMC to review and consider reconsideration requests before making recommendations to the Board on the merits of those requests. See Bylaws Art. 4, Section 4.2(e).

The Board has carefully considered the merits of Request 25-3 and all relevant materials. For the reasons set forth below and set forth more fully in the BAMC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 25-3 (BAMC Recommendation), which is incorporated herein by reference, the Board finds that Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint was proper, and there is no basis for reconsidering that decision as requested by Request 25-3.

The factual background is set forth in detail in the BAMC Recommendation, which is incorporated here, but, in relevant part, Request 25-3 was submitted by the Requestor seeking reconsideration of Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint. Prior to the submission of the Second Complaint, the Requestor submitted the First Complaint asserting that the Registrar had failed to adequately address what the Requestor believed to be inaccurate contact information for the registrant of the domain name cryptoweed.com (Domain). Contractual Compliance thoroughly investigated the First Complaint, determining that the Registrar had taken steps to suspend the Domain in compliance with the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the RDDS Accuracy Program Specification of the RAA with respect to claims of inaccurate registrant data and closed the First Complaint. The Requestor then submitted the Second Complaint, indicating that he "filed [the Second Complaint] due to the incomplete and unsatisfactory resolution of [the First Complaint]" and alleging that the Registrar's suspension of the Domain "was an irregular, non-standard deactivation that falls far short of a proper, policy-compliant suspension." (See Request 25-3.)

In responding to the Second Complaint, Contractual Compliance explained to the Requestor that a registrar may achieve suspension through various methods and is not required to enact "clientHold status" (the method preferred by the Requestor) to achieve this. Contractual Compliance reiterated the explicit language in Section 5 of the RDDS Accuracy Program Specification of the RAA, explaining that "[e]ven in cases where the provision of inaccurate data by a registrant is deemed willful by the registrar, the obligation is to either terminate, suspend, or place such registration on clientHold and clientTransferProhibited status. Suspension may be achieved by means other than altering the EPP status […], and there is no obligation in the [RDDS] Accuracy Specification to enact clientHold status to achieve this. Indeed, many registrars utilize other means to suspend a domain name, including for example, modification of nameservers/redirection of domain resolution, removal of hosting records, removal of account access, and the like. Further, the [RDDS] Accuracy Specification requires that where a domain is suspended, the suspension be maintained until such time as the applicable contact information is verified, but does not require that the domain name be terminated." (See Contractual Compliance email to the Requestor at Attachment 3 to Request 25-3 (emphasis in original).) In its investigations of both the First and Second Complaints, Contractual Compliance reviewed the actions taken by the Registrar and determined that the Registrar's actions were in compliance with the RAA and the RDDS Accuracy Program Specification of the RAA. Accordingly, Contractual Compliance closed the Second Complaint.

The Requestor claims that in reaching the decision to close the Second Complaint, Contractual Compliance failed to consider material information that the registrant contact information was inaccurate as well as evidence suggesting that the Registrar's suspension of the Domain was a "phantom resolution" rather than an RAA-compliant suspension of the Domain and evidence that the Registrar had previously breached certain other RAA obligations several years prior.

The Board agrees with the BAMC's conclusion that Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint was not based on a failure to consider any material information, but rather was appropriate and does not warrant reconsideration. With regard to the material information the Requestor claims was not considered, the Board notes that Contractual Compliance's full consideration of the Requestor's registrant data information is plainly demonstrated by the fact that the Requestor's claims (and accompanying information) prompted Contractual Compliance's investigation with the Registrar. The Board further notes that the Requestor's information allegedly demonstrating a "phantom resolution" actually relates to events that occurred after Contractual Compliance closed the Second Complaint and, thus, could not have been considered by Contractual Compliance in its closure of the Second Complaint. And, finally, the Board notes that the Requestor's reference to the Registrar's prior breach of unrelated provisions of the RAA was not relevant to Contractual Compliance's investigation of the complaints and is not relevant to the Board's consideration of Request 25-3. Rather, the materials provided by the Requestor show that Contractual Compliance considered all material information in investigating the First and Second Complaints and acted in conformance with ICANN policies when closing those complaints after confirming that the Registrar had taken steps to suspend the Domain in compliance with the RAA. The Board's decision is also consistent with the conclusion reached by the Ombuds that "Compliance considered the relevant material information, that the information [it considered] was neither false nor inaccurate, and its closure of the [First and Second Complaints] was not, in any way, in contradiction to or violation of 'ICANN's Mission' or its polic(ies)." (See Ombuds Evaluation.)

The Board also notes, as did the BAMC, that the Requestor's argument that the method the Registrar used to suspend the Domain was irregular and not "policy-compliant" seems to be based on the Requestor's misunderstanding that the only action a Registrar may take to address potentially inaccurate registrant data is to apply clientHold status. However, neither the ICANN Bylaws nor the RAA designates clientHold status as the sole available remedy under these circumstances, as explained above and in Contractual Compliance's communications to the Requestor. Therefore, Contractual Compliance appropriately closed the First Complaint after determining that the Registrar had taken steps to suspend the Domain in compliance with the RAA and appropriately closed the Second Complaint after confirming that there was no evidence that any subsequent noncompliance occurred. That is, prior to closing the Second Complaint (which is the focus of Request 25-3), Contractual Compliance considered all information material to determining whether the Registrar's actions were in compliance with the RAA and, in doing so, Contractual Compliance acted consistently with ICANN's policies, including its Core Values. Accordingly, the Board agrees with the BAMC Recommendation and the rationale contained therein, which is incorporated by reference here, that there is no basis for reconsidering Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Requestor's Second Complaint.

Pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2(q) of the Bylaws, the Requestor was provided 15 days from receipt of the BAMC Recommendation to submit a rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation. The BAMC Recommendation, along with the Ombuds Evaluation, was transmitted to the Requestor on 6 February 2026. The Requestor submitted a rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation on 21 February 2026 (Rebuttal).

In the Rebuttal, the Requestor reiterates his position that the RAA mandates the use of clientHold status to effectuate a suspension following the identification of inaccurate registrant data. As discussed above, however, the text of the RAA and the RDDS Accuracy Program Specification of the RAA expressly treats clientHold status as just one permissible response, and registrars may opt to use other mechanisms to enact suspensions consistent with the RAA.

The Rebuttal also asserts that, by permitting a suspension using means other than clientHold status, Contractual Compliance and the BAMC have incorrectly assumed that a domain name is functionally equivalent to a website, rather than requiring that the suspension apply to all of a domain's functions. The Requestor's assertion is incorrect. Contractual Compliance verified that the Registrar followed its standard process to suspend the Domain and Contractual Compliance confirmed that the suspension and the process complied with the RAA. While the details of Contractual Compliance's informal resolution processes are confidential, Contractual Compliance never suggested or implied, as the Requestor claims, that a domain name is not active simply because it does not host a website or that the removal of certain records alone constitutes a satisfactory suspension. Here, the Registrar properly suspended the Domain by implementing a series of measures designed to render the Domain non-operative and to ensure that the registrant no longer had access to it, until such time that the Registrar is able to validate the registrant's data.

Similarly, the Rebuttal asserts that the BAMC improperly relied on "consumer-grade HTTP browser checks," rather than authoritative tools, to verify the Domain's status. Again, this does not support reconsideration. The BAMC referenced NsLookup.io in the BAMC Recommendation because this is an easily-accessible tool for the public. Although the details of Contractual Compliance's informal resolution processes are confidential, Contractual Compliance independently reviewed and verified the Domain's status using authoritative tools in its investigations of both the First Complaint and the Second Complaint based on the specific steps that the Registrar had taken to render the Domain non-operative in order to achieve suspension.

In the Rebuttal, the Requestor also raises several issues regarding the Registrar's RDAP [Registration Data Access Protocol] data, including alleged discrepancies regarding location data, RDAP timestamps, and ROIDs [Repository Object Identifier] (collectively, alleged RDAP discrepancies). These alleged issues appear to relate to events that post-date Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint, which occurred on 27 October 2025 and which is the challenged action set forth in Request 25-3. In addition, the Requestor provides no evidence that any of these alleged RDAP discrepancies show that the Registrant maintained access to the Domain after it was suspended. Instead, the alleged RDAP discrepancies appear to reflect possible technical problems with the Registrar's RDAP system impacting its sponsored domain names, rather than any inadequacy of the suspension process of the Domain that was followed in this case. For these reasons, the alleged RDAP discrepancies do not provide a basis for reconsideration of Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint.

Finally, in the Rebuttal, the Requestor asserts that the Ombuds Evaluation was procedurally improper. The Requestor purported to attach a "rebuttal" to the Ombuds Evaluation, but no such rebuttal is provided for under the ICANN Bylaws; and it would not be an appropriate part of the Requestor's rebuttal to the BAMC Recommendation as it would render that rebuttal well over the 10-page limit and beyond the scope permitted. Moreover, the Board notes that the Ombuds Evaluation was a recommendation to the BAMC and was just one of several inputs that the BAMC reviewed in its consideration of Request 25-3. In any event, the Requestor's challenges to the Ombuds Evaluation do not provide a basis for reconsideration of Contractual Compliance's decision to close the Second Complaint.

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN is accountable to the community for operating within the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and other established procedures. This accountability includes having a process in place by which a person or entity adversely affected by an action or inaction of the Board or staff may request reconsideration by the Board of that action or inaction.

Adopting the BAMC Recommendation regarding Reconsideration Request 25-3 has no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.