Based on the Base Registry Agreement (21 January 2024 version)
See https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/base-registry-agreement-21-01-2024-en.pdf
While this document primarily governs the relationship between ICANN and the Registry Operator (not individual registrants), it contains several provisions that directly support my claim for remedy based on ICANN’s failure to enforce its own rules, lack of notice, and the principle of good faith.
Here are the specific clauses that are most relevant to my case:
1. Article 2.8 – Protection of Legal Rights of Third Parties
“Registry Operator must comply with all remedies imposed by ICANN… Registry Operator shall take reasonable steps to investigate and respond to any reports from law enforcement and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD.”
How it applies to my case:
-
The Malaysian government (a sovereign authority) confirmed it did not order the deletion.
-
ICANN did not investigate or respond to Malaysia’s position before acting.
-
ICANN imposed a “remedy” (deletion) without following its own requirement to investigate governmental reports.
The remedy I am entitled to:
ICANN should have ensured that any remedy (deletion) was preceded by proper investigation and notice to the affected government and registrant. It failed to do so.
2. Article 2.9(b) – Non-Discriminatory Access to Registry Services
“Registry Operator must provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all ICANN accredited registrars.”
How it applies to my case:
-
I registered through an ICANN-accredited registrar (Namecheap).
-
The deletion of my domain was ordered by ICANN, effectively discriminating against my registration without following due process.
-
No other similarly situated domain was deleted without notice.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Equal treatment under ICANN’s rules. If other “reserved name” violations were allowed to remain or were cured with notice, my case should have been handled the same way.
3. Article 3.1 – Open and Transparent Operation
“ICANN shall operate in an open and transparent manner.”
How it applies to my case:
-
ICANN did not notify me before deletion.
-
ICANN did not notify the Malaysian government when the domain was released, when the violation was found, or before deletion.
-
The government found out from me, not from ICANN.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Transparency includes prior notice and an opportunity to respond before any adverse action. ICANN violated this.
4. Article 3.2 – Equitable Treatment
“ICANN shall not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause.”
How it applies to my case:
-
ICANN singled out my domain for deletion after 10 years of accepting payments.
-
No justification was provided for why the domain was allowed to exist for a decade before sudden deletion.
-
The treatment was arbitrary and inequitable.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Equitable treatment requires notice, cure period, and compensation for detrimental reliance. ICANN provided NONE.
5. Article 4.6 – Effect of Termination (Survival of Obligations)
“Upon any expiration of the Term or termination of this Agreement, the obligations and rights of the parties hereto shall cease, provided that such expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of any obligation or breach of this Agreement accruing prior to such expiration or termination, including, without limitation, all accrued payment obligations.”
How it applies to my case:
-
ICANN’s breach occurred during the term of the Registry Agreement (2014–2024).
-
ICANN accepted payments for 10 years while the domain was allegedly “non-compliant.”
-
ICANN cannot escape liability for its breach simply because the domain was later deleted.
The remedy I am entitled to:
ICANN remains responsible for its breach of obligations that occurred during the term of the agreement, including its failure to enforce Specification 5 properly and its failure to provide notice.
6. Article 5.4 – Specific Performance
“Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific performance of the terms of this Agreement.”
How it applies to my case:
-
ICANN failed to perform its obligations under the Agreement (notice, transparency, equitable treatment).
-
I have suffered irreparable damage (loss of a 10-year asset, financial losses, reputational harm).
The remedy I am entitled to:
I am entitled to seek specific performance – i.e., an order requiring ICANN to remedy its breach. This could include:
-
Issuing a directive to restore my domain
-
Compensating me for my losses
-
Providing a formal acknowledgment of its failure
7. Section 2.6 – Reserved Names (Specification 5)
While Specification 5 itself is not fully quoted in the PDF excerpt, my case has already established that:
-
ICANN knew the domain was “incorrectly released” in 2023.
-
ICANN did nothing to notify me or the Malaysian government for nearly 2 years before deletion.
-
The deletion occurred without prior notice, without cure period, without appeal, without refund.
The remedy I am entitled to:
Even if the name was “reserved,” ICANN’s own process requires notice to the affected government and remedy to the registrant who relied on the registration for a decade.
Summary of Remedy Provisions
| Agreement Clause | What It Requires | How ICANN Failed | Remedy I Am Entitled To |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 2.8 | Investigate governmental reports before imposing remedies | Did not investigate Malaysia’s position | Proper investigation and notice before deletion |
| Article 2.9(b) | Non-discriminatory access to registry services | Discriminated against my registration | Equal treatment and due process |
| Article 3.1 | Open and transparent operation | No notice to me or Malaysia | Prior notice and opportunity to respond |
| Article 3.2 | Equitable, non-arbitrary treatment | Arbitrary deletion after 10 years of payments | Notice, cure period, compensation for reliance |
| Article 4.6 | Breaches during the term survive termination | Breach occurred during term | ICANN remains liable for its breach |
| Article 5.4 | Specific performance for irreparable damage | Irreparable damage suffered | Order requiring ICANN to remedy its breach |
Conclusion
The ICANN Base Registry Agreement does not explicitly state “the registrant must be compensated.” However, it establishes that:
-
ICANN must act transparently and equitably – it did not.
-
ICANN must investigate governmental reports before imposing remedies – it did not.
-
ICANN must not discriminate arbitrarily – it did.
-
ICANN is liable for breaches that occurred during the term – it is.
-
Specific performance is available for irreparable damage – I have suffered it.
My remedy is not explicitly written in black and white. But it is embedded in the principles of equitable treatment, transparency, and good faith that ICANN itself agreed to uphold.
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.