Based on the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
While this document primarily governs the relationship between ICANN and accredited registrars (such as Namecheap), it contains several provisions that directly support my claim for remedy based on Namecheap’s failure to comply with its obligations, including the absence of prior notice, lack of cure period, and the principle of good faith.
Here are the specific clauses that are most relevant to my case:
1. Section 3.7.5 – Renewal, Cancellation and Deletion of Registrations
“In the absence of extenuating circumstances… a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement.”
How it applies to my case:
-
My domain was deleted without any prior notice from Namecheap.
-
No termination of the registration agreement was initiated by me.
-
No “extenuating circumstances” (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1) were cited.
-
The deletion occurred without cure period, without appeal, without refund – while my domain still had nearly 5 months remaining before its expiry date.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Proper notice, an opportunity to cure, and adherence to the 45-day deletion timeline. Namecheap provided NONE of these.
2. Section 3.7.5.4 – Notice of Deletion and Auto-Renewal Policy
“Registrar shall provide notice to each new registrant describing the details of their deletion and auto-renewal policy including the expected time at which a non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to the domain’s expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten (10) days in length.”
How it applies to my case:
-
I had auto-renewal enabled.
-
I made my payment before the expiry date.
-
Namecheap did not provide any notice before deletion.
-
The deletion occurred nearly 5 months before expiry – not within any reasonable timeframe described in their policy.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Namecheap was obligated to provide clear notice of deletion timelines. It failed to do so. I am entitled to an explanation of why its own policy was not followed.
3. Section 3.7.5.5 – Display of Deletion and Auto-Renewal Policies on Website
“If Registrar operates a website for domain name registration or renewal, details of Registrar’s deletion and auto-renewal policies must be clearly displayed on the website.”
How it applies to my case:
-
I relied on Namecheap’s auto-renewal feature.
-
My domain was deleted despite auto-renewal being enabled.
-
Namecheap’s website did not warn me that a domain with auto-renewal enabled could be deleted nearly 5 months before expiry without notice.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Namecheap’s policies were either not clearly displayed or not followed. I am entitled to know which is true – and to remedy for the resulting loss.
4. Section 3.7.7 – Registration Agreement with Registered Name Holders
“Registrar shall require all Registered Name Holders to enter into an electronic or paper registration agreement… including at least the provisions set forth in Subsections 3.7.7.1 through 3.7.7.12.”
How it applies to my case:
-
I entered into a registration agreement with Namecheap.
-
Namecheap breached its own agreement by deleting my domain without prior notice, without cure period, and without refund.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Namecheap is bound by the terms of its registration agreement. It failed to honor those terms. I am entitled to specific performance or damages for breach of contract.
5. Section 3.7.7.11 – Suspension, Cancellation, or Transfer of Registered Names
“The Registered Name Holder shall agree that its registration of the Registered Name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any Specification or Policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with any Specification or Policy, (1) to correct mistakes by Registrar or the Registry Operator in registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes concerning the Registered Name.”
How it applies to my case:
-
This clause allows cancellation to correct mistakes by the registrar or registry.
-
The mistake was made by the registry (and ICANN) – not by me.
-
I was given no notice, no opportunity to cure, and no dispute resolution process before deletion.
-
I was never asked to “agree” to this cancellation. It was imposed on me without my knowledge or consent.
The questions I am entitled to ask:
If Section 3.7.7.11 is the authority for this cancellation, show me the “Dispute Resolution” record. Who was the arbiter? Where is the notice of the dispute?
If no dispute resolution process occurred, then this was not a cancellation under Section 3.7.7.11. It was an unauthorized seizure of a paid asset – taken without notice, without due process, without remedy.
Does “dispute resolution” mean nothing? Does “shall agree” mean nothing? Does the registrant have no rights at all – only the obligation to accept whatever the registrar and registry decide, whenever they decide it, without notice, without cure period, without appeal, without refund?
If that is the case, then this clause is not a contract. It is a waiver of every right a registrant has – buried in fine print, enforced a decade later, without a single word of warning.
The remedy I am entitled to ask for:
Even if the registration was a “mistake,” shouldn’t the registrant who relied on that registration for 10 years – who paid fees, built a business, and did nothing wrong – be entitled to notice, an opportunity to cure, and compensation for detrimental reliance?
Or does the word “mistake” in this clause mean that the registrant bears 100% of the loss for an error made entirely by the registry and ICANN?
And if no dispute resolution process was ever initiated, no arbiter appointed, no notice given – then on what authority was my domain deleted?
6. Section 3.18.1 – Abuse Contact and Duty to Investigate Reports of Abuse
“Registrar shall maintain an abuse contact… Registrar shall take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately to any reports of abuse.”
How it applies to my case:
-
I reported my domain deletion to Namecheap multiple times.
-
Namecheap did not investigate or respond appropriately. See https://loss.co/responses/#namecheap
-
Instead, Namecheap invented a “ghost registry” (Enom Registry) and blamed others. See https://www.namepros.com/threads/is-your-domain-truly-secure-my-experience-raises-serious-questions.1362731/page-18#post-9588107
The remedy I am entitled to:
Namecheap failed its duty to investigate and respond. I am entitled to a proper investigation and a substantive response – not deflection and ghost registries.
7. Section 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.”
How it applies to my case:
-
Namecheap blamed the .BUILD registry and eNom for the deletion.
-
Namecheap invented “Enom Registry” as a ghost to deflect responsibility.
-
Namecheap remains fully responsible for its own compliance – regardless of third-party involvement.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Namecheap cannot hide behind upstream providers or ghost registries. It is responsible for its own compliance – and for the remedy I seek.
8. Section 5.5.4 – Termination for Failure to Cure Breach
“Registrar fails to cure any breach of this Agreement within twenty-one (21) days after ICANN gives Registrar notice of the breach.”
How it applies to my case:
-
ICANN was notified of Namecheap’s breach through my complaint (Case #01448650).
-
ICANN has not given Namecheap notice of breach.
-
ICANN has not enforced its own agreement.
The remedy I am entitled to:
ICANN should enforce its own agreement. Namecheap should be given notice of breach and an opportunity to cure – or face termination of its accreditation.
Summary of Remedy Provisions (RAA)
| Agreement Clause | What It Requires | How Namecheap Failed | Remedy I Am Entitled To |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 3.7.5 | 45-day deletion timeline; extenuating circumstances required | Deleted without notice, 5 months before expiry | Proper notice, cure period, adherence to timeline |
| Section 3.7.5.4 | Notice of deletion and auto-renewal policy | No notice provided before deletion | Explanation of policy violation and remedy |
| Section 3.7.5.5 | Clear display of deletion and auto-renewal policies | Policies either unclear or not followed | Transparency and correction |
| Section 3.7.7 | Registration agreement terms | Breach of agreement terms | Specific performance or damages |
| Section 3.7.7.11 | Cancellation only to correct mistakes or resolve disputes | No notice, no dispute resolution | Opportunity to participate in correction process |
| Section 3.18.1 | Investigate and respond to abuse reports | No investigation; ghost registry invented | Proper investigation and substantive response |
| Section 3.12 | Registrar responsible for compliance regardless of third parties | Blamed others; invented ghost registry | Namecheap cannot hide behind upstream providers |
| Section 5.5.4 | ICANN to give notice of breach; registrar to cure within 21 days | ICANN has not enforced; Namecheap has not cured | ICANN enforcement; Namecheap cure or termination |
Conclusion
The 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement establishes that:
-
Namecheap must follow proper deletion procedures – it did not.
-
Namecheap must provide notice of deletion – it did not.
-
Namecheap is responsible for its own compliance – it cannot hide behind ghost registries.
-
Namecheap must investigate and respond to abuse reports – it did not.
-
ICANN has the authority to enforce this agreement – it has not.
My remedy is not explicitly written in black and white. But it is embedded in the obligations Namecheap agreed to – and failed to honor.
The evidence is cataloged here. The structural solution is THE WONG CLAUSE, and it is being institutionalized.
Disclaimer: This website reflects the author’s personal account and opinions regarding the loss of access to the domain *malaysia.build*. The information presented is based on direct experience, contemporaneous records, and a good-faith belief in its accuracy at the time of publication. Mentions of companies, registrars, registries, or other organizations are included only to factually describe events and circumstances relevant to this case. These references are provided solely to factually describe documented events and communications. They should not be read as allegations of misconduct, negligence, or liability of any individual, company, or organization. The content is provided solely for informational and documentary purposes. It does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice, and should not be relied upon as a definitive statement of fact or legal conclusion.
Corrections Policy: If any party believes that information contained on this website is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, they are invited to contact the author at [email protected]. All requests will be reviewed promptly and in good faith. Verified corrections, clarifications, or updates will be published transparently.
Right of Reply: Any registrar, registry, upstream provider, or organization referenced in this website is welcome to submit a written response. Such responses will be published in full, unedited, to ensure fairness and balance.
© 2025 WONG TAI CHIEW. All Rights Reserved.