This page summarizes documented concerns and circumstances surrounding the unexpected transfer and loss of access of my domain, malaysia.build. The intent is to provide a factual record for transparency and awareness, and to raise important questions for registrants everywhere.
1. Allocation and Retroactive Reservation
Issue:
malaysia.build was successfully allocated in 2014 and continuously used for nearly a decade, as shown by preorder confirmation, transfers, and renewal receipts but was later described as having a “reserved” status.
Evidence:
- On June 21, 2025, Namecheap informed me: “…we can say that malaysia.build is not registered at all at the moment. But, its registration is restricted by the .BUILD Registry – it has ‘reserved’ status.”
- The removal took place after nearly a decade of uninterrupted registration and use, based on my records.
Relevance:
The later application of a ‘reserved’ status, after nearly a decade of continuous use, may raise questions about consistency with ICANN’s stated principles of predictability and uniform enforcement.
Questions:
- If malaysia.build was successfully registered in 2014 and renewed for almost 10 years, how does that align with the later claim that it was “reserved”?
- Does enforcing a restriction after 3,287 days raise questions about predictability for domain owners?
2. Absence of EPP Code in Transfer
Issue:
The transfer of malaysia.build occurred without the use of an EPP code.
Evidence:
- Namecheap confirmed: “No, according to our logs, the EPP code was not requested.” (July 14, 2025)
- Namecheap also stated: “Transfer out was processed from our database.” (July 13, 2025)
Relevance:
- The absence of an EPP code may not align with ICANN’s Transfer Policy §2.1.1, which requires a “Standardized Form of Authorization.”
Questions:
- If transfers normally require an EPP code under ICANN policy, how was this transfer completed without one?
- Does the absence of this security step raise concerns about how registrant consent was handled?
3. Lack of Prior Notification
Issue:
The registrant was not notified of any domain suspension or termination before the removal.
Evidence:
- I did not receive any prior notice of policy violations, reservation status, or removal.
- Enom, the upstream provider, stated in an email (July 14 2025): “You will need to contact the registry directly for any answers to these questions, as this action was taken by them directly. This is also why we have no record of the transfer, or distribution of an Auth Code for transfer, as the action was performed solely at the Registry level.”
- This suggests that no standard communication or transfer process records were visible to me, at either the registrar or upstream level, which in turn supports my experience of not receiving notice as the registrant.
Relevance:
- The lack of notification may not align with ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA):
- RAA §3.7.5: “At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by the Registered Name Holder to consent to renewal […] shall result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period.”
- RAA §3.7.5.4: “Registrar shall provide notice to each new registrant describing […] deletion and auto-renewal policy.”
Questions:
- If Enom confirmed they had “no record of the transfer, or distribution of an Auth Code” because the action was performed at the registry level, how could the registrant have been notified?
- Should registrants reasonably expect that, even if an action originates at the registry, notice will still reach them through their accredited registrar?
4. Absence of an Effective Resolution Process
Issue:
There was no clear or effective process available to resolve my complaint regarding the domain’s removal, and no indication that escalation to ICANN would occur.
Evidence:
- My initial complaint on June 11, 2025 led to referrals to the upstream provider and registry, consuming more than a month without resolution.
- On July 14, 2025, Namecheap stated: “We are not considering escalation to ICANN at the moment.”
Relevance:
- RAA §3.7.11: “Registrar shall make available […] processes for submitting complaints and resolving disputes.”
- RAA §3.4.3: “Registrar shall make […] records […] available for inspection by ICANN upon reasonable notice.”
- The lack of a functional process highlights the importance of oversight in registrar complaint-handling practices.
Questions:
- When a registrar says “We are not considering escalation to ICANN,” does that provide a genuine path to resolution?
- If registrars defer responsibility to upstream providers and registries, who ultimately protects the registrant’s interests?
5. Communication Challenges
Issue:
I experienced significant delays in communication, received responses that did not adequately address my key concerns, and saw the ticket closed before the central issues were resolved.
Evidence:
- Between June 12 and July 13, 2025, responses repeatedly stated only that “more time” was needed.
- Email records reflect delays of more than 30 days.
- As stated in their email, the correspondence was ‘closed’ on July 15, 2025 without resolution; the subsequent referral to their legal team produced no further engagement.
Relevance:
- RAA §3.18.1: “Registrar shall maintain an abuse contact […] and take reasonable steps to investigate reports of abuse.”
- RAA §3.18.3: “Registrar shall document receipt/response to abuse reports and retain records for 2 years.”
Questions:
- Is a month-long series of “we need more time” responses, followed by closing the support ticket, consistent with the intent of ICANN’s obligations?
- What should registrants expect as a reasonable timeline for resolving critical issues like a domain removal?
6. Conflicting Explanations Regarding ICANN’s Role
Issue:
Different parties provided conflicting explanations about whether ICANN instructed the removal of malaysia.build.
Evidence:
- On December 1, 2023, the .BUILD Registry informed Enom that ICANN had requested removal.
- Enom relayed this to me on July 14, 2025.
- On August 13, 2025, ICANN stated to me that it does not have contractual authority to instruct a registry to release or reserve a name.
Relevance:
The differing explanations create uncertainty about the procedural basis for the domain’s removal.
Questions:
- If one party states that ICANN requested removal, while ICANN says it has no such authority, how is a registrant meant to reconcile the difference?
- What safeguards exist to prevent conflicting explanations from undermining registrant trust?
7. Registry Silence and Unanswered Questions
Issue:
Despite my attempts to contact the .BUILD Registry, I did not receive any replies or observe an appeal mechanism.
Evidence:
- Despite being copied on multiple emails and contacted via online forms, the registry provided no reply.
- No documentation beyond a single relayed email was provided.
Relevance:
The absence of notification, from my perspective, raises questions about consistency with ICANN’s stated principles of openness, fairness, and due process.
Questions:
- If registries remain silent when contacted, what recourse do registrants have?
- Should registrants be entitled to a clear appeal mechanism at the registry level?
8. Cross-TLD Consistency Concerns
Issue:
The observed variation in the enforcement of Specification 5 rules across new gTLDs has led me to question its consistency.
Evidence:
Country-name domains such as peru.travel and greece.travel continue to operate, while malaysia.build was removed. See Historical Whois Data for peru.travel and greece.travel.
Relevance:
The apparent differences in enforcement raise questions about uniform treatment of registrants across new gTLDs subject to the same agreements.
Questions:
- If domains like peru.travel and greece.travel remain active, why was malaysia.build treated differently?
- Could perceived differences in enforcement across new gTLDs raise concerns about fairness and equal treatment?
Conclusion
The removal of malaysia.build has left me with multiple procedural questions and uncertainties including retroactive reservation, absence of an EPP code, lack of prior notice, challenges in the resolution process, communication challenges, conflicting explanations, and registry silence.
These experiences raise important questions about due process, transparency, and fairness for registrants. My objective remains to pursue a fair resolution while helping other domain owners become aware of potential risks.
See The Project: Real-World Impact
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.