Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Open Whois must die, Europe privacy chiefs tell ICANN

Kevin Murphy, December 7, 2017, Domain Policy

Unfettered public access to full Whois records is illegal and has to got to go, an influential European Union advisory body has told ICANN.

The Article 29 Working Party on Data Protection, WP29, wrote to ICANN yesterday to say that “that the original purposes of the WHOIS directories can be achieved via layered access” and that the current system “does not appear to meet the criteria” of EU law.

WP29 is made up of representatives of the data protection agencies in each EU member state. It’s named after Article 29 of the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive.

This directive is parent legislation of the incoming General Data Protection Regulation, which from May 2018 will see companies fined potentially millions of euros if they fail to protect the privacy of EU citizens’ data.

But WP29 said that there are questions about the legality of full public Whois under even the 1995 directive, claiming to have been warning ICANN about this since 2003:

WP29 wishes to stress that the unlimited publication of personal data of individual domain name holders raises serious concerns regarding the lawfulness of such practice under the current European Data Protection directive (95/46/EC), especially regarding the necessity to have a legitimate purpose and a legal ground for such processing.

Under the directive and GDPR, companies are not allowed to make consent to the publication of private data a precondition of a service, which is currently the case with domain registration, according to WP29.

Registrars cannot even claim the publication is contractually mandated, because registrants are not party to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the letter (pdf) says.

WP29 adds that law enforcement should still be able to get access to Whois data, but that a “layered” access control approach should be used to prevent full disclosure to anyone with a web browser.

ICANN recently put a freeze on its contract compliance activities surrounding Whois, asking registries and registrars to supply the organization with the framework and legal advice they’re using to become compliant with GDPR.

Registries and registrars are naturally impatient — after a GDPR-compatible workaround is agreed upon, they’ll still need to invest time and resources into actually implementing it.

But ICANN recently told contracted parties that it hopes to lay out a path forward before school breaks up for Christmas December 22.

ICANN chief tells industry to lawyer up as privacy law looms

Kevin Murphy, November 10, 2017, Domain Services

The domain name industry should not rely on ICANN to protect it from incoming EU privacy law.

That’s the strong message that came out of ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi last week, with the organization’s CEO repeatedly advising companies to seek their own legal advice on compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation.

The organization also said that it will “defer taking action” against any registrar or registry that does not live up its contractual Whois commitments, within certain limits.

“GDPR is a law. I didn’t come up with it, it didn’t come from ICANN policy, it’s the law,” Marby said during ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi last week.

“This is the first time we’ve seen any legislation that has a direct impact on our ability to make policies,” he said.

GDPR is the EU law governing how companies treat the private information of individuals. While in force now, from May next year companies in any industry found in breach of GDPR could face millions of euros in fines.

For the domain industry, it is expected to force potentially big changes on the current Whois system. The days of all Whois contact information published freely for all to see may well be numbered.

But nobody — not even ICANN — yet knows precisely how registries and registrars are going to be able to comply with the law whilst still publishing Whois data as required by their ICANN contracts.

The latest official line from ICANN is:

At this point, we know that the GDPR will have an impact on open, publicly available WHOIS. We have no indication that abandoning existing WHOIS requirements is necessary to comply with the GDPR, but we don’t know the extent to which personal domain registration data of residents of the European Union should continue to be publicly available.

Marby told ICANNers last week that it might not be definitively known how the law applies until some EU case law has been established in the highest European courts, which could take years.

A GNSO working group and ICANN org have both commissioned legal studies by European law experts. The ICANN one, by Swedish law firm Hamilton, is rather more comprehensive and can be read here (pdf).

Even after this report, Marby said ICANN is still in “discovery” mode.

Marby encouraged the industry to not only submit their questions to ICANN, to be referred on to Hamilton for follow-up studies, but also to share whatever legal advice they have been given and are able to share.

He and others pointed out that Whois is not the only point of friction with GDPR — it’s a privacy law, not a Whois law — so registries and registrars should be studying all of their personal data collection processes for potential conflicts.

Because there is very likely going to be a clash between GDPR compliance and ICANN contract compliance, ICANN has suspended all enforcement actions against Whois violations, within certain parameters.

It said last week that: “ICANN Contractual Compliance will defer taking action against any registry or registrar for noncompliance with contractual obligations related to the handling of registration data.”

This is not ICANN saying that registries and registrars can abandon Whois altogether, the statement stresses, but they might be able to adjust their data-handling models.

Domain firms will have to show “a reasonable accommodation of existing contractual obligations and the GDPR” and will have to submit their models to ICANN for review by Hamilton.

ICANN also stressed that registries may have to undergo a Registry Services Evaluation Process review before they can deploy their new model.

The organization has already told two Dutch new gTLD registries that they must submit to an RSEP, after .amsterdam and .frl abruptly stopped publishing Whois data for private registrants recently.

General counsel John Jeffrey wrote to the registries’ lawyer (pdf) to state that an RSEP is required regardless of whether the “new registry service” was introduced to comply with local law.

“One of the underlying purposes of this policy is to ensure that a new registry service does not create and security, stability or competition concerns,” he wrote.

Jeffrey said that while Whois privacy was offered at the registry level, registrars were still publishing full contact details for the same registrants.

ICANN said last week that it will publish more detailed guidance advising registries and registrars how to avoid breach notices will be published “shortly”.

Amsterdam refuses to publish Whois records as GDPR row escalates

Kevin Murphy, October 23, 2017, Domain Policy

Two Dutch geo-gTLDs are refusing to provide public access to Whois records in what could be a sign of things to come for the whole industry under new European privacy law.

Both .amsterdam and .frl appear to be automatically applying privacy to registrant data and say they will only provide full Whois access to vetted individuals such as law enforcement officials.

ICANN has evidently slapped a breach notice on both registries, which are now complaining that the Whois provisions in their Registry Agreements are “null and void” under Dutch and European Union law.

FRLregistry and dotAmsterdam, based in the Netherlands, are the registries concerned. They’re basically under the same management and affiliated with the local registrar Mijndomein.

dotAmsterdam operates under the authority of the city government. .frl is an abbreviation of Friesland, a Dutch province.

Both companies’ official registry sites, which are virtually identical, do not offer links to Whois search. Instead, they offer a statement about their Whois privacy policy.

That policy states that Dutch and EU law “forbids that names, addresses, telephone numbers or e-mail addresses of Dutch private persons can be accessed and used freely over the internet by any person or organization”.

It goes on to state that any “private person” that registers a domain will have their private contact information replaced with a “privacy protected” message in Whois.

Legal entities such as companies do not count as “private persons”.

Under the standard ICANN Registry Agreement, all new gTLDs are obliged to provide public Whois access under section 2.5. According to correspondence from the lawyer for both .frl and .amsterdam, published by ICANN, the two registries have been told they are in breach.

It seems the breach notices have not yet escalated to the point at which ICANN publishes them on its web site. At least, they have not been published yet for some reason.

But the registries have lawyered up already, regardless.

A letter from Jetse Sprey of Versteeg Wigman Sprey to ICANN says that the registries are free to ignore section 2.5 of their RAs because it’s not compliant with the Dutch Data Protection Act and, perhaps more significantly, the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

The GDPR is perhaps the most pressing issue for ICANN at the moment.

It’s an EU law due to come into effect in May next year. It has the potential to completely rewrite the rules of Whois access for the entire industry, sidestepping the almost two decades of largely fruitless ICANN community discussions on the topic.

It covers any company that processes private data on EU citizens; breaching it can incur fines of up to €20 million or 4% of revenue, whichever is higher.

One of its key controversies is the idea that citizens should have the right to “consent” to their personal data being processed and that this consent cannot be “bundled” with access to the product or service on offer.

According to Sprey, because the Registry Agreement does not give registrants a way to register a domain without giving their consent to their Whois details being published, it violates the GDPR. Therefore, his clients are allowed to ignore that part of the RA.

These two gTLDs are the first I’m aware of to openly challenge ICANN so directly, but GDPR is a fiercely hot topic in the industry right now.

During a recent webinar, ICANN CEO Goran Marby expressed frustration that GDPR seems to have come about — under the watch of previous CEOs — without any input from the ICANN community, consideration in the EU legislative process of how it would affect Whois, or even any discussion within ICANN’s own Governmental Advisory Committee.

“We are seeing an increasing potential risk that the incoming GDPR regulation will mean a limited WHOIS system,” he said October 4. “We appreciate that for registers and registers, this regulation would impact how you will do your business going forward.”

ICANN has engaged EU legal experts and has reached out to data commissioners in the 28 EU member states for guidance, but Marby pointed out that full clarity on how GDPR affects the domain industry could be years away.

It seems possible there would have to be test cases, which could take five years or more, in affected EU states, he suggested.

ICANN is also engaging with the community in its attempt to figure out what to do about GDPR. One project has seen it attempt to gather Whois use cases from interested parties. Long-running community working groups are also looking at the issue.

But the domain industry has accused ICANN the organization of not doing enough fast enough.

Paul Diaz and Graeme Bunton, chairs of the Registries Stakeholder Group and Registrars Stakeholder Group respectively, have recently escalated the complaints over ICANN’s perceived inaction.

They told Marby in a letter that they need to have a solution in place in the next 60 days in order to give them time to implement it before the May 2018 GDPR deadline.

Complaining that ICANN is moving too slowly, the October 13 letter states:

The simple fact is that the requirements under GDPR and the requirements in our contracts with ICANN to collect, retain, display, and transfer personal data stand in conflict with each other.

GDPR presents a clear and present contractual compliance problem that must be resolved, regardless of whether new policy should be developed or existing policy adjusted. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to start tackling this problem head-on.

For registries and registrars, the lack of clarity and the risk of breach notices are not the only problem. Many registrars make a bunch of cash out of privacy services; that may no longer be as viable a business if privacy for individuals is baked into the rules.

Other interests, such as the Intellectual Property Constituency (in favor of its own members’ continued access to Whois) and non-commercial users (in favor of a fundamental right to privacy) are also complaining that their voices are not being heard clearly enough.

The GDPR issue is likely to be one of the liveliest sources of discussion at ICANN 60, the public meeting that kicks off in Abu Dhabi this weekend.

UPDATE: This post was updated October 25 to add a sentence clarifying that companies are not “private persons”.

Halloran made ICANN’s first chief data protection officer

Kevin Murphy, July 31, 2017, Domain Policy

ICANN lifer Dan Halloran has added the title of chief data protection officer to his business card.

The long-serving deputy general counsel was named ICANN’s first CDPO on Friday, continuing to report to his current boss, general counsel John Jeffrey.

Privacy is currently the hottest topic in the ICANN community, with considerable debate about how contracted parties might be able to reconcile their ICANN obligations with forthcoming European data protection legislation.

But Halloran’s new role only covers the protection of personal data that ICANN itself handles; it does not appear to give him powers in relation to ongoing discussions about how registries and registrars comply with data privacy regulations.

He will be tasked with overseeing privacy frameworks for data handling and conducting occasional reviews, ICANN said.

ICANN has on occasion messed up when it comes to privacy, such as when it accidentally published the home addresses of new gTLD applicants in 2012, or when it made sensitive applicant financial data openly searchable on its applicant portal.

Halloran joined ICANN over 17 years ago and before his deputy GC position served as chief registrar liaison.

ICANN loosens Whois privacy rules for registrars

Kevin Murphy, April 20, 2017, Domain Policy

ICANN has made it easier for registries and registrars to opt-out of Whois-related contractual provisions when they clash with local laws.

From this week, accredited domain firms will not have to show that they are being investigated by local privacy or law enforcement authorities before they can request a waiver from ICANN.

Instead, they’ll be also be able to request a waiver preemptively with a statement from said authorities to the effect that the ICANN contracts contradict local privacy laws.

In both cases, the opt-out request will trigger a community consultation — which would include the Governmental Advisory Committee — and a review by ICANN’s general counsel, before coming into effect.

The rules are mainly designed for European companies, as the EU states generally enjoy stricter privacy legislation than their North American counterparts.

European registrars and registries have so far been held to a contract that may force them to break the law, and the only way to comply with the law would be to wait for a law enforcement proceeding.

ICANN already allows registrars to request waivers from the data retention provisions of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement — which require the registrar to hold customer data for two years after the customer is no longer a customer.

Dozens of European registrars have applied for and obtained this RAA opt-out.

Pirate Bay founder launches piracy-friendly domain privacy service

Kevin Murphy, April 19, 2017, Domain Registrars

The founder of controversial BitTorrent search engine The Pirate Bay has entered the domain name market with a new proxy service.

It’s called Njalla, it’s based in a Caribbean tax haven, and it says it offers a higher level of privacy protection than you get anywhere else.

The company described itself in its inaugural blog post today like this:

Think of us as your friendly drunk (but responsibly so) straw person that takes the blame for your expressions. As long as you keep within the boundaries of reasonable law and you’re not a right-wing extremist, we’re for promoting your freedom of speech, your political weird thinking, your kinky forums and whatever.

Founder Peter Sunde was reluctant to describe Njalla as a proxy registration service, but it’s difficult to think of another way of describing it.

When you buy a domain via the company’s web site, the name is registered by Njalla for itself. You can still use the domain as you would with a regular registrar, but the name is “owned” by Njalla (1337 LLC, based in Saint Kitts & Nevis).

The company is a Tucows reseller via OpenSRS, and it supports almost all gTLDs and several ccTLDs (it’s declined to support Uniregistry due to recent price increase announcements).

Prices are rather industry standard, with a .com setting you back €15 ($16).

The big difference appears to be that the service doesn’t want to know anything about its registrants. You can sign up with just an email address or, unusually, an XMPP address. It doesn’t want to know your name, home address, or anything like that.

This means that whenever Njalla receives a legal request for the user’s identity, it doesn’t have much to hand over.

It’s based on Nevis due to the strong privacy laws there, Sunde said.

Under what circumstances Njalla would suspend service to a customer and hand over their scant private information appears to be somewhat vague and based on the subjective judgement or politics of its management.

“As long as you don’t hurt anyone else, we’ll let you do your thing,” Sunde said.

Child abuse material is verboten. Spam is in a “gray zone” (although forbidden by Njalla’s terms of service).

Copyright infringement appears to be just fine and dandy, which might not be surprising. Sunde founded The Pirate Bay in 2003 and spent time in prison in Sweden for assisting copyright infringement as a result.

“You don’t hurt people by putting a movie online,” Sunde said. “You do hurt someone by putting child porn or revenge porn or stuff like that… If you look at any statistics on file sharing, it proves that the more people file-share the more money goes into the ecosystem of the media.”

While this is likely to upset the IP lobby within the domain name community, I think there’s a possibility that existing ICANN policy will soon have an impact on Njalla’s ability to operate as it hopes.

ICANN is in the process of implementing a privacy/proxy services accreditation program that will require registrars to only work with approved, accredited proxy services.

Sunde thinks Njalla doesn’t fall into the ICANN definition of a proxy service, and said his lawyers agree.

Personally, I can’t see the distinction. I expect ICANN Compliance will probably have to make a call one way or the other one day after the accreditation system comes online.

Did Whois blow the lid off a Labour leadership coup, or is this just pig-fuckery?

Kevin Murphy, February 28, 2017, Gossip

A British Member of Parliament has been forced to deny he was behind the registration of several domain names promoting him as a future leader of the Labour party.

Clive Lewis, until recently a member of the shadow cabinet, told the Guardian yesterday that he did not register the batch of domains, which included cliveforleader.org.uk, cliveforlabour.org.uk and their matching .org, .uk and .co.uk domains.

“None of this is true: I haven’t done this,” he told the paper, following a Huffington Post article revealing the names had been registered June 29 last year, just a couple of days after he was appointed shadow defence secretary.

Lewis resigned from the shadow cabinet three weeks ago after refusing to vote in favor of triggering the Article 50 process that will take the UK out of the European Union.

The Labour Party has been dogged by stories about potential leadership challenges ever since Jeremy Corbyn — popular among grassroots party members, unpopular with voters — took over.

Questions about Corbyn’s leadership reemerged last week after a disastrous by-election defeat for the party.

The domains were taken as an indication that Lewis had been plotting a coup for many months, which he has denied.

The Whois records do not support a conclusion one way or another.

Under Nominet rules, individuals are allowed to keep their phone number, postal and email addresses out of Whois if the domains are to be used for non-commercial purposes, a right the registrant of the names in question chose to exercise.

Public Whois records show the .uk names registered to “Clive Lewis”, but contain no contact information.

They do contain the intriguing statement “Nominet was able to match the registrant’s name and address against a 3rd party data source on 29-Jun-2016”, a standard notice under Nominet’s Whois validation program.

But Nominet does not validate the identity of registrants, nor does it attempt to link the registrant’s name to their purported address.

The statement in the Whois records translates merely that Nominet was able to discover that a person called Clive Lewis exists somewhere in the world, and that the postal address given is a real address.

The .org and .com domains, registered the same day by the same registrar, use a Whois privacy service and contain no information about the registrant whatsoever.

Lewis himself suspects the batch of names may have been registered by a political opponent in order to force him to deny that he registered them, noting that fellow MP Lisa Nandy had a similar experience last July.

His initial statement to HuffPo, on which he reportedly declined to elaborate, was:

A lesson from LBJ [US President Lyndon B Johnson] in how to smash an opponent. Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson’s opponent f*cked pigs. The aide responded: ‘Christ, Lyndon, we can’t call the guy a pigf*cker. It isn’t true.’ To which LBJ supposedly replied: ‘Of course it ain’t true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it.’

Since then, along with his denial to the Guardian, he’s told his local Norwich newspaper that he’s tasked his lawyers with finding out who registered the names.

“I have instructed a solicitor to go away and look at this. They can try and make sure we find the identity, the IP address and the payment details,” he told the Eastern Daily Press.

Registrars off the hook for silly ICANN transfer policy

Kevin Murphy, December 27, 2016, Domain Registrars

Domain name registrars have been assured that ICANN Compliance will not pursue them for failing to implement the new Transfer Policy on privacy-protected names.

As we reported late November, the new policy requires registrars to send out “change of registrant” confirmation emails whenever certain fields in the Whois are changed, regardless of whether the registrant has actually changed.

The GNSO Council pointed out to ICANN a number of unforeseen flaws in the policy, saying that vulnerable registrants privacy could be at risk in certain edge cases.

They also pointed out that the confirmation emails could be triggered, with not action by the registrant, when privacy services automatically cycle proxy email addresses in the Whois.

This appears to have already happened with at least one registrar that wasn’t paying attention.

But ICANN chair Steve Crocker told the GNSO Council chair last week that ICANN staff have been instructed to ignore violations of the new policy, which came into effect December 1, in cases involving privacy-protected domains (pdf).

It’s a temporary measure until the ICANN board decides whether or not to defer the issue to the GNSO working group currently looking at policies specifically for privacy and proxy services.

Privacy risk under new domain transfer policy

Kevin Murphy, November 30, 2016, Domain Registrars

ICANN’s new domain Transfer Policy, which comes into effect tomorrow, creates risks for users of privacy/proxy services, registrars and others haved warned.

The policy could lead to private registrants having their contact information published in the public Whois for 60 days, the GNSO Council expects to formally tell ICANN this week.

“This could threaten privacy for at-risk registrants without clear benefit,” the Council says in a draft letter to the ICANN board.

The revised Transfer Policy was designed to help prevent domain hijacking.

The main change is that whenever there’s a “change of registrant”, the gaining and losing registrants both have to respond to confirmation emails before the change is processed.

However, “change of registrant” is defined in such a way that the confirmation emails would be triggered even if the registrant has not changed.

For example, if you change your last name in your Whois records due to marriage or divorce, or if you change email addresses, that counts as a change of registrant.

It now turns out that ICANN considers turning a privacy service on or off as a change of registrant, even though that only affects the public Whois data and not the underlying customer data held by the registrar.

The GNSO Council’s draft letter states:

ICANN has advised that any change to the public whois records is considered a change of registrant that is subject to the process defined through IRTP-C. Thus, turning a P/P service on or off is, from ICANN’s view, a change of registrant. It requires the CoR [change of registrant] process to be followed and more importantly could result in a registrant exposing his/her information in the public whois for 60 days. This could threaten privacy for at-risk registrants without clear benefit.

My understanding is that the exposure risk outlined here would only be to registrants who attempt to turn on privacy at their registrar then for whatever reason ignore, do not see or do not understand the subsequent confirmation emails.

Depending on implementation, it could lead to customers paying for a privacy service and not actually receiving privacy.

On the other side of the coin, it’s possible that an actual change in registrant might not trigger the CoR process if both gaining and losing registrants both use the same privacy service and therefore have identical Whois records.

The Council letter also warns about a possible increase in spam due to the changes:

many P/P services regularly generate new email addresses for domains in an effort to reduce spam. This procedure would no longer be possible, and registrants may be subject to unwanted messaging. Implementing the CoR for email changes that some providers do as often as every 3-5 days is not feasible.

ICANN has been aware of these issues for months. Its suggested solution is for registrars to make themselves the “Designated Agent” — a middleman permitted to authorize transfers — for all of their customers.

As we reported earlier this week, many large registrars are already doing this.

But registrars and the GNSO Council want ICANN to consider reinterpreting the new policy to exclude privacy/proxy services until a more formal GNSO policy can be created.

While the Policy Development Process that created the revised transfer rules wound up earlier this year, a separate PDP devoted to creating rules of privacy/proxy services is still active.

The Council suggests that this working group, known as PPSAI, could assume the responsibility of clearing up the mess.

In the meantime, registrars are rather keen that they will not get hit with breach notices by ICANN Compliance for failing to properly implement to what seems to be a complex policy.

Pirates lose privacy rights under new ICANN rules

Kevin Murphy, January 22, 2016, Domain Registrars

People operating piracy web sites would have a harder time keeping their personal information private under new ICANN rules.

ICANN’s GNSO Council last night approved a set of recommendations that lay down the rules of engagement for when trademark and copyright owners try to unmask Whois privacy users.

Among other things, the new rules would make it clear that privacy services are not permitted to reject requests to reveal a domain’s true owner just because the IP-based request relates to the content of a web site rather than just its domain name.

The recommendations also contain safeguards that would allow registrants to retain their privacy if, for example, their safety would be at risk if their identities were revealed.

The 93-page document (pdf) approved unanimously by the Council carries a “Illustrative Disclosure Framework” appendix that lays out the procedures in some depth.

The framework only covers requests from IP owners to proxy/privacy services. The GNSO was unable to come up with a similar framework for dealing with, for example, requests from law enforcement agencies.

It states flatly:

Disclosure [of the registrant’s true Whois details] cannot be refused solely for lack of any of the following: (i) a court order; (ii) a subpoena; (iii) a pending civil action; or (iv) a UDRP or URS proceeding; nor can refusal to disclose be solely based on the fact that the Request is founded on alleged intellectual property infringement in content on a website associated with the domain name.

This fairly explicitly prevents privacy services (which in most cases are registrars) using the “we don’t regulate content” argument to shoot down disclosure requests from IP owners.

Some registrars were not happy about this paragraph in early drafts, yet it remains.

Count that as a win for the IP lobby.

However, the new recommendations spend a lot more time giving IP owners a quite strict set of guidelines for how to file such requests in the first place.

If they persistently spam the registrar with automated disclosure requests, the registrar is free to ignore them. They can even share details of spammy IP owners with other registrars.

The registrar is also free to ignore requests that, for example, don’t give the exact or representative URL of an alleged copyright infringement, or if the requester has not first attempted to contact the registrant via an email relay service, should one be in place.

The registrant also gets a 15-day warning that somebody has requested their private details, during which, if they value their privacy more than their web site, they’re able to relinquish their domain and remain anonymous.

If the registrant instead uses that time to provide a good reason why they’re not infringing the requester’s rights, and the privacy service agrees, the request can also be denied.

The guidelines would make it easier for privacy service operators to understand what their obligations are. By formalizing the request format, it should make it easier to separate legit requests from the spurious requests.

They’re even allowed to charge IP owners a nominal fee to streamline the processing of their requests.

While these recommendations have been approved by the GNSO Council, they need to be approved by the ICANN board before becoming the law of the ‘net.

They also need to pass through an implementation process (conducted by ICANN staff and GNSO members) that turns the recommendations into written procedures and contracts which, due to their complexity, I have a hunch will take some time.

The idea is that the rules will form part of an accreditation program for privacy/proxy services, administered by ICANN.

Registrars would only be able to use P/P services that agree to follow these rules and that have been accredited by ICANN.

It seems to me that the new rules may be quite effective at cracking down on rogue, “bulletproof” registrars that automatically dismiss piracy-based disclosure requests by saying they’re not qualified to adjudicate copyright disputes.