Subject: Systemic Failure in ICANN Accountability and Coordinated Institutional Evasion – Urgent Ombudsman Escalation (Case #01448650 / malaysia.build)

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 12:02 AM
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>

Cover Line for CC to ICANN Board

This escalation is copied to the ICANN Board and Board Operations for transparency, given that Contractual Compliance is implicated in contradictory statements and has not provided resolution. All involved parties are also copied to preclude further claims of unawareness or miscommunication, and to underscore the coordinated nature of this institutional failure.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While this case remains technically open, I am left with no alternative but to escalate this matter. ICANN Contractual Compliance has effectively stalled, ignoring my repeated emails and allowing A CRITICAL BREAKDOWN OF ACCOUNTABILITY to go unaddressed.

I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding the unauthorized removal of the domain malaysia.build. This situation represents A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN of accountability across all four involved parties: ICANN Contractual Compliance, Namecheap (the Registrar), Enom (the Upstream Provider), and the .BUILD Registry.

After 111 days of documented attempts to obtain answers, evidence, and a resolution, the responses have been characterized by contradictory statements, blame-shifting, and ultimately—a COORDINATED SILENCE when confronted with specific, documented demands.

This is not a routine dispute. It is a SYSTEMIC FAILURE that undermines the credibility and integrity of the entire gTLD framework.

This is not simply a registrar dispute — it is a case where every accountability mechanism has failed. Ombudsman intervention is therefore not optional, but essential, to prevent this case from setting a precedent that erodes registrant trust worldwide.

THE PATTERN OF CONTRADICTIONS AND EVASION

1. ICANN’s Contradictory Positions on Authority

ICANN’s Statement (13 August 2025):

[See: 14-icann-reply-dated-aug-13-2025.png]

“Please note that beyond the terms and exceptions explicitly provided by the RA and ICANN Consensus Policies, the ICANN organization has no contractual authority to instruct a registry operator to release a reserved name.”

Registry’s Statement to Enom (1 December 2023):

[See: 22-enom-reply-dated-jul-14-2025.png]

“This email is to inform you that we have been requested by ICANN to remove / Block the domain malaysia.build from registration due to it violating Spec 5 of our Registry agreement.”

These statements cannot both be true. Either:

• ICANN did issue a directive (contradicting its own compliance statement), or
• The Registry misrepresented ICANN’s authority to justify retroactive removal

Both scenarios represent serious procedural irregularities. Yet when I demanded clarification through four detailed follow-up emails (10-12 September 2025)

[See: 16-follow-up-emails-after-sept-10-2025-icann-reply-date-11-12-sept-2025.pdf],

ICANN responded with a templated non-answer (16 September 2025)

[See: 17-icann-reply-dated-sept-16-2025.png]

and subsequently went silent despite a formal 7-day deadline.

2. The Conveniently Late “Audit” Explanation

ICANN filed my complaint on 11 July 2025

[See: 13-icann-new-case-reply-dated-jul-11-2025.png].

For two full months, ICANN made no mention of any audit program – during which multiple emails were exchanged between ICANN and me.

Given that ICANN could have performed A SIMPLE INTERNAL SYSTEM SEARCH using the domain name I provided to determine the cause of the loss ALMOST INSTANTLY! Their failure to disclose the audit for two months is inexplicable.

Only on 10 September 2025,

[See: 15-icann-reply-dated-sept-10-2025.png]

after I submitted extensive evidence mapping RAA/RA violations

[See: 0-my-email-dated-aug-19-2025-to-icann-compliance-violation-matrix.docx]

ICANN suddenly introduced the “October 2023 Audit Program” as justification.

Critical Questions ICANN Refuses to Answer:

• Why was the audit not disclosed in the 13 August 2025 response, or in any of the subsequent email exchanges prior to 10 September 2025?
• If the audit occurred in October 2023, why did implementation take nearly two years?
• Where is the documentary evidence that malaysia.build was specifically flagged in this audit?
• Why was no registrant notification provided at the time of audit findings?
• Why was a domain actively used for commercial development for 9+ years suddenly deemed “reserved” through an audit conducted years after its registration?
• How does ICANN justify the destruction of significant business value without any compensation or prior warning?
• What safeguards exist to prevent audit findings from being applied retroactively to legitimate, long-standing registrations?

A professional regulatory body does not take two months to identify and disclose the supposed root cause of a complaint. This delayed explanation appears retroactive and fabricated—a convenient excuse offered only after repeated pressure.

3. Namecheap’s Circular Blame Game

Namecheap’s Pattern (June-July 2025):

[See: 23-namecheap-responses.pdf]

or view the responses at https://loss.co/responses/

• “We’re waiting for responses from Enom and the Registry”
• “We cannot provide information until we hear from upstream parties”
• “We are not responsible; the Registry executed this action”

My 26 September 2025 Demand:

[See: 20-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-formal-demand-for-explanation-from-namecheap.docx]

“Did Namecheap formally contact Enom and the .BUILD Registry regarding my domain loss? If YES, provide the complete email chain. If NO, explain why you repeatedly claimed to be awaiting responses.”

Result: Complete silence beyond the 48-hour deadline.

Namecheap profited from my renewal payment through April 2024. The domain was removed in December 2023—five months before expiry—with no EPP code, no authorization, and no notification. As the registrar of record, Namecheap’s fundamental duty was to safeguard the domain. Their blame-shifting and subsequent silence constitute abandonment of contractual obligations.

4. Enom’s Minimal Cooperation

Enom provided one email (14 July 2025) forwarding the Registry’s message, then ceased all communication. My 26 September 2025 request

[See: 21-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-urgent-clarification-request-enom.docx]

demanded seven specific answers including:

• Verification of Namecheap’s inquiry
• Copies of the ICANN directive
• Registrant notification records
• Internal logs and communications

Result: Complete silence beyond the 48-hour deadline.

5. The Registry’s Total Silence

Despite being copied on every email since July 2025 and receiving direct formal complaints via email and online form, the .BUILD Registry has never responded once

[See: 19-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-formal-complaint-against-build-registry.docx].

Not a single acknowledgement. Not a single explanation. Complete institutional silence from the party that actually executed the removal.

6. Fundamental Due Process Violations

The complete absence of due process in this case represents a critical failure:

• No prior notification of alleged violation was ever sent to me as the registrant
• No opportunity was given to contest the alleged “reserved status” before deletion
• No appeal process was provided or explained
• No evidence of the violation was ever presented to the legitimate registrant

This violates basic principles of natural justice and ICANN’s own commitment to transparent governance. A domain held for 9+ years cannot be summarily deleted without giving the registrant an opportunity to be heard.

7. Consumer Protection / Public Interest Harm

Beyond contractual failures, this situation has consumer protection implications. Thousands of registrants trust the stability of the DNS system. If a domain held for nearly a decade can be retroactively deleted without notice, the public’s confidence in ICANN’s stewardship of gTLDs is undermined. This escalates the matter beyond an individual grievance — it is a public interest issue.

THE PRECEDENT-SETTING DANGER

In general practice, ICANN’s compliance processes and registry–registrar procedures have consistently recognized that registrants must be given prior notice and an opportunity to respond before material adverse actions are taken against their domain names. Whether in cases of alleged abuse, policy violations, or registry restrictions, the established pattern has been to provide registrants with explicit notice, an opportunity to cure or contest the claim, and an appeals pathway through the registrar or dispute resolution mechanisms.

In this matter, no such procedural safeguard was observed. A domain that had been continuously registered, renewed, and actively developed for over nine years was summarily deleted without any prior warning, without disclosure of the alleged violation, and without any opportunity for the registrant to contest or appeal the action. This represents not only a departure from general ICANN practice, but also a fundamental violation of the principles of fairness, proportionality, and accountability that underpin the multi-stakeholder model.

This failure to provide notice or recourse is not an isolated oversight; it establishes a precedent that undermines registrant trust in the DNS and signals that even long-standing, lawfully maintained domains can be taken without due process.

This case sets a dangerous precedent for all domain registrants:

• If a domain registered in 2014 can be deleted in 2023 based on retroactive “audit findings,” no domain is safe.
• The complete lack of transparency in the audit process means any registry could remove domains arbitrarily and cite “audit compliance” as justification.
• The failure of all accountability mechanisms demonstrates that registrants have no meaningful recourse when facing coordinated institutional evasion. This creates unacceptable uncertainty for businesses and individuals who invest in developing online properties under ICANN’s supposed framework of stability and predictability.

THE ANALOGY: A REAL-WORLD PARALLEL

Imagine this scenario in criminal proceedings:

A valuable item is stolen from a secured storage facility. The victim reports the theft and demands answers:

• The Security Company (Namecheap): “We don’t know what happened. The vault operator and the building owner should explain.”
• The Vault Operator (Enom): “The building owner ordered us to remove it for policy violations,” then goes silent.
• The Building Owner (Registry): Complete silence. Never respond.
• The Regulatory Authority (ICANN): Initially says “We have no authority to order removals,” then two months later claims “Actually, we conducted an audit in 2023 and found violations,” but refuses to provide audit documentation or explain the contradiction.

In any court of law, this pattern would be recognized immediately as coordinated evasion. When every party in the chain contradicts each other, shifts blame, and then maintains collective silence when confronted with specific evidentiary demands, it signals a systemic cover-up of procedural failures.

No reasonable judge, prosecutor, or investigator would accept:

• Contradictory explanations that change based on pressure applied
• Refusal to produce documentation supposedly justifying the action taken
• Blame-shifting in a circular pattern where no party accepts responsibility
• Coordinated silence when faced with deadline-based demands for evidence

This is precisely what has occurred here.

DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE

Timeline of Institutional Failure

1. 11 June 2025: First complaint to Namecheap

[12-first-complaint-to-namecheap-dated-june-11-2025.png]

1. 11 July 2025: Escalation to ICANN Compliance

[13-icann-new-case-reply-dated-jul-11-2025.png]

1. 13 August 2025: ICANN denies authority to instruct registries

[14-icann-reply-dated-aug-13-2025.png]

1. 19 August 2025: Submitted comprehensive Compliance Violation Matrix

[0-my-email-dated-aug-19-2025-to-icann-compliance-violation-matrix.docx

1-proof-of-successful-preorder-registration-transfers-renewals-2014-2023.pdf

2-whois-records.pdf

3-domain-resolution-records.pdf

4-video-demonstrations-of-full-platform-functionality.pdf

5-fpx-payment-integration-demo-for-woocommerce.pdf

6-confirmation-from-namecheap-no-epp-code-was-issued.pdf

7-registrar-provided-inconsistent-explanations.pdf

8-the-registrys-silence-no-answers-from-build.pdf

9-historical-whois-data-for-peru-travel-and-greece-travel.pdf

10-enom-email-registry-claims-icann-ordered-removal.pdf

11-complete-email-trail.txt]

1. 10 September 2025: ICANN introduces “October 2023 Audit” for the first time

[15-icann-reply-dated-sept-10-2025.png]

1. 10-12 September 2025: Four detailed follow-up emails demanding clarification

[16-follow-up-emails-after-sept-10-2025-icann-reply-date-11-12-sept-2025.pdf]

1. 16 September 2025: ICANN sends templated non-response

[17-icann-reply-dated-sept-16-2025.png]

1. 22 September 2025: Formal 7-day deadline set for ICANN to provide answers

[18-my-email-dated-sept-22-2025-request-for-direct-answers-from-icann.docx]

1. 26 September 2025: Formal complaints sent to all three parties (Namecheap, Enom, Registry) with 48-hour deadlines

[19-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-formal-complaint-against-build-registry.docx

20-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-formal-demand-for-explanation-from-namecheap.docx

21-my-email-dated-sept-26-2025-urgent-clarification-request-enom.docx]

1. 30 September 2025: All parties remain silent beyond deadlines

Fundamental Contradictions That Demand Resolution

Contradiction #1: ICANN’s Authority

• Registry claims: “ICANN requested removal”
• ICANN claims: “No authority to instruct registries”

Contradiction #2: Audit Disclosure

• Prior to 10 September 2025: No mention of audit.
• 10 September 2025: Audit suddenly becomes the central justification

Contradiction #3: Retroactive Enforcement

• Domain lawfully allocated in 2014
• Continuously renewed for 3,287 days (9+ years)
• Actively used for commercial platform development
• Suddenly declared “always reserved” in 2023

Contradiction #4: Transfer Without EPP Code

• Namecheap confirms: “No EPP code was requested”
• ICANN Transfer Policy §2.1.1 requires authorization
• Domain removed anyway without proper procedure

REGISTRANT’S INVESTMENT AND DAMAGES

malaysia.build was not an idle domain. I invested 30+ months developing a comprehensive real estate platform:

• Full-featured website with 50+ search filters
• Progressive Web App (PWA) implementation
• Android application (downloadable APK available)
• iOS-ready webview implementation
• FPX Payment Gateway integration (approved by PayNet Malaysia)
• Multi-role dashboards (user, agent, agency)
• Mortgage calculators, map integration, WhatsApp messaging
• Property comparison, favorites, social sharing
• Custom features for Malaysian market (land titles, tenure, Feng Shui direction)

Live demo: https://malaysia.sibu.design
Video demonstrations: https://loss.co/videos
Complete evidence: https://loss.co

Documented damages include:

• Development investment (30+ months full-time work)
• Lost revenue (platform ready for launch)
• Business disruption (partnerships on hold)
• Reputational harm (early users abandoned)
• Marketing investment (malaysia.build branding wasted)
• Opportunity costs (unable to pursue other projects)
• Ongoing dispute resolution costs
• Loss of SEO ranking and digital brand identity tied to malaysia.build
• Harm to investor and partner confidence
• Inability to re-acquire the same namespace (as “malaysia” is a premium and geo-sensitive keyword)

Given that Contractual Compliance is itself implicated in contradictions, and that neither the Registry, Registrar, nor Upstream Provider has engaged despite multiple deadlines, no internal ICANN mechanism remains credible. Ombudsman intervention is therefore not optional but essential as the final safeguard to uphold ICANN’s stated commitments to accountability and fairness.

DEMANDS FOR OMBUDSMAN INTERVENTION

Given the complete breakdown of accountability, I formally request the Ombudsman to:

1. IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION

Investigate the procedural failures and contradictions across all four parties, specifically:

• The contradiction between ICANN’s stated authority and the Registry’s claim
• The delayed disclosure of the “October 2023 Audit”
• The failure of all parties to provide requested documentation
• The coordinated silence following formal deadline-based demands

2. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ORDERS

Order immediate production of:

• Complete October 2023 Audit findings specifically referencing malaysia.build
• All communications between ICANN and .BUILD Registry regarding malaysia.build
• All communications between Namecheap and Enom regarding my complaint
• Registry’s consultation records with Malaysia’s GAC representative (if any)
• Proof of registrant notification attempts (if any)

3. DOMAIN RESTORATION

Order immediate restoration of malaysia.build to my account, given:

• Procedural violations (no EPP code, no notice, no due process)
• Contradictory explanations from responsible parties
• 9+ years of lawful, commercial use
• Retroactive application of policy without notification
• Complete failure of accountability mechanisms

4. RECOGNITION OF DAMAGES & COMPENSATION FRAMEWORK

While I acknowledge that the Ombudsman does not directly award financial damages, I respectfully request that your office:

• Registrar profited from renewal payments yet failed safeguarding duties
• Registry acted without registrant notification or appeal process
• ICANN Compliance provided contradictory, evasive responses
• 111+ days of documented attempts to obtain accountability
• Recognize the material harm caused by this systemic failure
• Recommend that ICANN, the Registrar, and the Registry establish a compensation framework in this case

5. SYSTEMIC REFORMS

Recommend reforms to prevent similar failures:

• Mandatory registrant notification before registry-level deletions
• Transparent audit finding disclosure timelines
• Clear accountability when multiple parties claim “not responsible”
• Consequences for registries that misrepresent ICANN authority
• Protection against retroactive enforcement of policies on long-standing registrations
• Establish an Independent Registrant Appeals Mechanism allowing domain owners to contest registry-level deletions before they are executed. This would mirror due process in other regulatory environments and prevent retroactive application of policies.

6. PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Identify and hold accountable the specific individuals and departments responsible for:

• The contradictory statements about ICANN’s authority
• The decision to withhold audit information for two months
• The approval of domain removal without registrant notification
• The collective silence in response to formal complaints

CONCLUSION

This case exposes a fundamental flaw in ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. When Contractual Compliance itself becomes part of the problem—offering contradictory statements, template responses, and evasion—where can registrants turn?

The coordinated silence of all four parties following specific, evidence-based demands is not coincidental. It represents A SYSTEMIC INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE where each party knows it cannot justify its actions when confronted with documentation requirements.

In any legitimate legal, regulatory, or investigative proceeding, this pattern of behavior would be immediately recognized as obstruction. The shifting explanations, refusal to produce evidence, circular blame-shifting, and coordinated silence are the hallmarks of parties who cannot withstand scrutiny.

I have acted in good faith for 111 days. I have provided comprehensive evidence. I have complied with every request. I have set reasonable deadlines. I have escalated through proper channels.

All four parties have failed to meet the most basic standards of transparency and accountability.

The Ombudsman represents the last independent oversight mechanism within ICANN’s framework. If this office cannot provide remedy when every other accountability mechanism has demonstrably failed, then ICANN’s entire claim to serving the public interest becomes meaningless.

The implications of this case extend far beyond my individual domain loss. If ICANN’s accountability mechanisms can be so easily evaded through coordinated silence and contradictory statements, then every domain registrant is vulnerable to similar institutional failure. The credibility of the entire multi-stakeholder model depends on your office’s ability to intervene meaningfully in cases where all other mechanisms have demonstrably failed.

Given the commercial disruption and ongoing harm caused by the domain’s deletion, I respectfully request the Ombudsman’s urgent intervention, investigation, and remedy. Every additional day without resolution compounds the damages and further undermines trust in ICANN’s accountability framework.

Sincerely,

WONG TAI CHIEW

Former Registrant of malaysia.build
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +60198280131

Complete Documentation: https://loss.co
ICANN Case Reference: #01448650
Days Since Initial Complaint: 111 days (11 June 2025 – 30 September 2025)

From: ombuds <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:12 AM
To: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Cc: ombuds <[email protected]>

Dear Wong Tai Chiew,

I acknowledge your email and your request for the Ombuds Office intervention.  I am very sorry to hear about your situation with your domain name and the impact that this is having on you.

I understand that ICANN Contractual Compliance is working on a detailed response for you.  When you have received that response, depending on the response and your views, if you wish to proceed with the Ombuds Office please let us know.

In the meantime, I would like to clarify the Ombuds role and what is in scope for the Ombuds Office.  First, the Ombuds Office does not have the authority to act over any matter regarding a registrar or registry.  The Ombuds can only act with respect to ICANN org, the Board or and ICANN constituent body.  For example, this means that the Ombuds Office would not be able to request or review communications between Namecheap and Enom regarding your complaint.  Nor could the Ombuds Office order restoration of your domain. We can evaluate whether you have been treated unfairly by ICANN Contractual Compliance in their handling of your complaint.

Please let us know if you have any questions about the Ombuds Office role and process and how we can help.

Warm wishes,

Liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 6909 www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 9:59 PM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>

Dear Liz,

Thank you for your kind acknowledgment and for clarifying the Ombuds Office’s scope. I truly appreciate your compassion regarding the impact this situation has had on my business.

I understand that you are awaiting ICANN Contractual Compliance’s “detailed response” before considering whether Ombuds intervention may be appropriate. I will of course wait for that response, but I would like to place one critical clarification on record now.

On the Specification 5 Defense

If Specification 5 genuinely prohibited “malaysia.build,” then the fault lies with the Registry’s systems, not with me as a good-faith registrant. I:

1. Registered the domain through normal ICANN-accredited channels in 2014
2. Made ten consecutive annual renewal payments, from 2014 through 2023, with auto-renew enabled
3. Received confirmations of payment, renewal, WHOIS publication, and DNS resolution each year
4. Had no reason to know about internal restrictions such as Spec 5
5. Lost the domain while nearly five months remained before expiry—meaning I was deprived of an asset I had already paid for and lawfully relied upon

All parties profited from my payments—Namecheap through registrar fees, Enom through backend services, the Registry through registry fees, and ICANN through its fees—yet all now claim they “didn’t notice” Malaysia was a country name for nearly ten years.

The systems exist precisely to block prohibited names. If “Malaysia” was truly reserved, then the registration should have been technically impossible in 2014. The fact that it was accepted and renewed ten times proves this was not a registrant violation but a system failure.

In law, this reflects the principle of legitimate reliance (estoppel): when an authority enables a registrant to rely on something for many years, it cannot later revoke it without due process or compensation.

The Implausibility of “Oversight”

The explanation strains credibility. I obtained malaysia.build via pre-order on April 29, 2014—just weeks after the MH370 tragedy made “Malaysia” one of the most reported country names worldwide. The Registry approved my registration soon after, and renewals were processed for nearly a decade.

Malaysia is not obscure: it is one of fewer than 200 countries, a G20 member, and repeatedly in international headlines during 2014-2023 (MH370, 1MDB, and more). For the Registry—contractually bound to apply Spec 5—to now suggest it simply “didn’t notice” is implausible. It indicates either systemic compliance failure or retroactive policy enforcement.

Either way, the burden of that failure cannot be transferred to a good-faith registrant.

Concerns About Compliance’s Handling

What troubles me most is that ICANN Compliance has so far:

1. Provided contradictory statements – Registry claimed ICANN requested removal; ICANN stated it has no such authority
2. Withheld disclosure of the October 2023 audit – not mentioning it until September 2025, nearly two months after my July 2025 complaint, despite the information being instantly available
3. Avoided procedural questions – Why no EPP code, no registrant notification, and no due process before deletion?

Questions for the Ombuds Office

When Compliance provides its response, I respectfully request that the Ombuds Office assess whether my case was handled fairly in terms of timeliness, consistency, and transparency. Specifically:

1. If Compliance continues to assert Spec 5 without providing documentary evidence (audit reports, communications, deletion authorization), would the Ombuds Office be able to request that Compliance substantiate its claims?
2. Does the Ombuds Office have the ability to examine whether ICANN Compliance fulfilled its duty by exercising its contractual authority to compel necessary documents and answers from the Registry and Registrar during its investigation?

I await Compliance’s response as advised, but I must emphasize: the fault lies with the system, not the registrant. Registrants who act in full compliance, pay faithfully for a decade, and maintain valid domains with months remaining should not be deprived of their rights without process, evidence, or remedy.

This case is not only about my domain, but about whether ICANN’s systems protect good-faith registrants from systemic errors.

Thank you again for your assistance and for clarifying the Ombuds Office role.

Warm regards,

Wong Tai Chiew

(Former Registrant of malaysia.build)

Email:[email protected]

Phone: +60198280131

Complete Documentation: https://loss.co

ICANN Case Reference: 01448650

From: ombuds <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:31 AM
To: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Cc: ombuds <[email protected]>

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

I hope you are very well.  I just wanted to write back to acknowledge your email. I know that you are waiting for the detailed response from ICANN Contractual Compliance.

When you receive the response and if you wish to work with the Ombuds Office, please get in touch and we will discuss next steps.

In the meantime, I wish you all the best.

Warm wishes,
liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 6909 www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 1:28 AM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>

Subject: Status Update – Case #01448650: 100 Days Without Resolution

Dear Liz,

Thank you for your October 14 acknowledgment. I’m writing to provide a brief but critical status update on Case #01448650 focusing specifically on the continued delay and coordinated silence from all parties involved.

Your earlier message on 3 October 2025 indicated that Compliance would provide a “detailed response.” However, no such response has been delivered to date.

Timeline Update (October 19, 2025):

• 100 days since ICANN Compliance case opened (July 11, 2025)
• 33 days since last Compliance communication (September 16, 2025)
• 27 days since my formal deadline to Compliance passed unanswered (September 22)
• 23 days since formal demands to Registry, Registrar, and Enom passed unanswered (September 26)
• 19 days since Ombudsman escalation (October 1, 2025)

COMPLETE SILENCE FROM ALL PARTIES CONTINUES—EVEN AFTER OMBUDSMAN INVOLVEMENT.

Why This 100-Day Delay Is Itself Evidence of Unfair Treatment:

ICANN operates the technical infrastructure for domain registrations. A simple database query using “malaysia.build” should instantly reveal:

• Deletion date and authorization
• Audit flags or compliance actions
• Registry-registrar communications
• EPP transaction logs

This is straightforward documentary data that exists in ICANN’s systems.

For context on what constitutes reasonable response time:

• Credit card disputes: 60-90 days maximum
• Consumer protection complaints: 30-45 days typical
• ICANN’s own Transfer Policy disputes: 5-7 days
• My case: 100+ days with no resolution

A 100-day delay for a factual question cannot be attributed to technical limitations. It strongly suggests one of three scenarios:

1. Incomplete record-keeping (system failure violating ICANN’s Data Retention requirements)
2. Documentation exists but exposes procedural violations (explaining reluctance to disclose)
3. Delayed introduction of justification (e.g., the “October 2023 audit” mentioned only on September 10, 2025, 61 days after my complaint)

Critical Pattern: The “audit” explanation itself highlights a complete due process failure. An audit in October 2023 led to deletion in December 2023, yet I received zero prior notification throughout this entire period—and only discovered the reason through my own 100-day investigation in 2025.

My Two Questions:

1. Has your office received any communication from Compliance regarding an expected timeline for their response?
2. Given that this is a straightforward documentary question with instantly accessible data, at what point does a 100+ day delay itself constitute evidence of unfair treatment warranting formal Ombudsman review?

I remain ready to engage with the formal review process once Compliance responds. However, if this silence continues beyond a reasonable timeframe, I respectfully ask whether the Ombudsman Office can proceed with a fairness review based on the pattern of non-response itself.

I wish to ensure that the delay itself—and what it reflects about institutional accountability—is fully considered in the fairness assessment.

For ease of reference, I’ve forwarded my original escalation dated 1 October 2025, which consolidates the full background, correspondence, and evidence already shared with your office.

Thank you for your continued guidance.

Respectfully,

Wong Tai Chiew
Former Registrant of malaysia.build
Email: [email protected]
Phone: +60198280131
ICANN Case Reference: #01448650
Complete Documentation: https://loss.co

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:28 AM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Subject: Formal Request for Ombuds Investigation: 110-Day Delay, Institutional Bad Faith, and Procedural Unfairness (Case 01448650)

Date: 28 October 2025

CC to ICANN Board and Board Operations, for transparency only.

This correspondence is copied to the ICANN Board not as a complaint against the Ombuds Office, but to ensure transparency in the handling of Case #01448650. As nearly 110 days have passed since the complaint was filed without receipt of the promised “detailed response” from Contractual Compliance, Board-level visibility is now necessary to maintain accountability and public confidence in ICANN’s complaint processes.

Dear Liz,

I am writing to formally request the Ombuds Office immediately commence an independent investigation into ICANN Contractual Compliance’s handling of my case (01448650 / malaysia.build).

The 110-day delay in providing a substantive response, combined with clear evidence of institutional bad faith, procedural violations, and willful negligence, leaves no doubt that your intervention is urgently required.

1. Critical Factors Mandating Immediate Investigation

1.1 Unreasonable Delay as Procedural Unfairness

• Nearly 110 days have passed since my initial complaint (11 July 2025)
• 28 days since my escalation to the Ombuds Office (1 October 2025)
• Despite your 3 October assurance of a “detailed response,” no substantive communication has been received
• This delay itself violates ICANN’s commitment to timeliness and due process
• This delay has halted my 30+ month real estate platform development, causing significant financial and reputational loss, as detailed at https://loss.co.

1.2 Evidence of Bad Faith, Institutional Evasion, and Fundamental Contradictions

• Fundamental Contradiction on Authority: The .BUILD Registry claimed “ICANN requested removal” while ICANN Compliance denied having such authority, creating an unresolvable contradiction that undermines the legitimacy of the domain’s deletion.
  ·      Retroactive Justification & Concealment: The “October 2023 audit” was cited as justification only after 61 days of correspondence, with the two-month withholding of this critical information suggesting deliberate obstruction.
  ·      Retroactive Policy Application: The domain was registered and renewed for over nine years before being retroactively deemed non-compliant with Spec 5, representing improper retroactive enforcement.
  ·      Deliberate Institutional Avoidance: All involved parties have maintained coordinated silence despite multiple formal deadlines, demonstrating systematic evasion of accountability.

1.3 Willful Negligence and Due Process Violations

• No prior notification was provided before domain deletion
• No opportunity for appeal or response was offered
• The domain was deleted while still valid and paid for
• Active business operations were destroyed without due process

2. Chronology of Institutional Failure

• 11 July 2025: Complaint filed with ICANN Contractual Compliance
• 13 August 2025: Compliance issues contradictory statement denying authority
• 10 September 2025: ICANN introduces “October 2023 audit” justification after 61-day delay
• 22 September 2025: My 7-day deadline for response passes without reply
• 26 September 2025: Formal 48-hour deadline demands for explanation and evidence are sent to Namecheap, Enom, and the .BUILD Registry.
• 30 September 2025: All 48-hour deadlines to Namecheap, Enom, and the Registry pass with complete silence.
• 1 October 2025: Case escalated to Ombuds Office due to Compliance silence
• 3 October 2025: Ombuds Office confirms “detailed response” being prepared
• 19 October 2025: 100-day milestone reached without resolution
• 28 October 2025: 110 days of delay – still no detailed response

All parties maintained coordinated silence despite multiple follow-ups and clear deadlines.

3. Legal and Procedural Implications

The documented evidence demonstrates:

• Bad faith administrative conduct through contradictory statements and delayed disclosures
• Willful negligence in disregarding established procedural obligations
• Institutional evasion through coordinated silence and blame-shifting
• Violation of registrant rights under ICANN’s contractual framework
• Breach of ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior on transparency and accountability
• Fundamental due process violations through summary deletion without notice or appeal

4. Required Ombuds Actions

I respectfully request the Ombuds Office to:

• Immediately commence an investigation into ICANN Contractual Compliance’s handling of this case
• Compel production of audit findings, EPP logs, and Registry-ICANN communications specific to malaysia.build.
• Establish a binding deadline for resolution of this matter
• Provide written confirmation by 4 November 2025 that the investigation has commenced

Given that it has been 110 days since the original complaint, any further delay would itself constitute procedural unfairness and raise serious concerns about institutional accountability within ICANN.

5. Outstanding Substantive Questions Requiring Resolution

Any meaningful response must address:

• The specific audit findings regarding malaysia.build
• Reconciliation of contradictory statements about ICANN’s authority
• The legal basis for retroactive policy application
• Evidence of registrant notification attempts
• Explanation for the 61-day delay in disclosing the audit justification
• Documentation of the authorization path for domain deletion

6. Conclusion

The 110-day delay, combined with clear evidence of bad faith and procedural violations, demonstrates a systemic failure within ICANN’s accountability mechanisms. Your office is the final internal safeguard for fairness.

To ensure this matter reaches a fair resolution, I kindly request written confirmation by 4 November 2025 that the Ombuds Office has initiated an independent investigation.

Should no confirmation be received by that date, I will understand that internal review processes may have reached their practical limits. In that case, I may need to consider alternative channels to continue seeking transparency and accountability, consistent with ICANN’s public interest principles.

This includes, but is not limited to:

• A formal briefing and escalation to Malaysia’s GAC representative, detailing ICANN’s failure to uphold its own accountability standards.
• Video Explanations & Public Outreach: Creating and disseminating detailed video content on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, including a documentary-style explainer of the case, walkthroughs of the evidence, and summaries of the institutional failures to make the issue accessible to a global audience.
• A comprehensive and sustained public campaign to ensure full transparency. This will involve promoting the complete evidence repository at https://loss.co through:

o    News & Media Outreach: Submitting the case to international technology and business publications such as TechCrunch, Wired, Ars Technica, and The Register.

o    Academic & Policy Channels: Developing this into a formal case study for internet governance journals and think tanks (e.g., EFF, Berkman Klein Center).

o    Industry & Public Advocacy: Pushing for coverage in CircleID, Domain Incite, and other relevant forums, while also filing complaints with digital rights organizations.

o    Social Media & Developer Communities: A coordinated campaign on X (Twitter), LinkedIn, Reddit, Hacker News, and GitHub to engage both the public and the technical community.

I am prepared to sustain these efforts through every credible channel at my disposal until this matter is fairly resolved.

This correspondence has been copied to the ICANN Board for transparency and to ensure they are fully informed of this ongoing procedural failure and its potential consequences for ICANN’s global reputation.

The time for urgent and decisive internal action is now.

Sincerely,
Wong Tai Chiew
Former Registrant – malaysia.build
[email protected]
+60 19-828 0131
Documentation: https://loss.co
ICANN Case Ref: 01448650

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 1:44 AM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>

Subject: Addendum: Board Addresses Bounced – Request for Forwarding (Case #01448650)

Dear Liz,

I wish to inform you that both [email protected] and [email protected] addresses returned delivery errors when my earlier message was sent.

Kindly forward my correspondence of 28 October 2025 (“Formal Request for Ombuds Investigation: 110-Day Delay, Institutional Bad Faith, and Procedural Unfairness”) to the appropriate Board Correspondence or Accountability contact for transparency, as originally intended.

This ensures the ICANN Board Secretariat and Accountability team remain fully aware of the institutional delay and ongoing procedural concerns in Case #01448650.

Thank you for your attention and for ensuring this matter remains properly documented and transparent.

Sincerely,

Wong Tai Chiew

Former Registrant – malaysia.build
[email protected]
+60 19-828 0131
Documentation: https://loss.co
ICANN Case Ref: 01448650

From: Elizabeth Field <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 8:57 PM
To: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Cc: ombuds <[email protected]>

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

Thank you for following up.  I am sorry for the delay in responding to your email 19 October.  I, and many ICANN org staff as well as community members, are currently at an ICANN Public Meeting so response times are slower.

I recognize and acknowledge your frustration with the delays in response, especially given your situation.  I have spoken with colleagues in ICANN Contractual Compliance today.  They have said that they are still preparing the response and you will receive it shortly.    This may or may not be before your desired deadline of 4 November.

In your situation, I cannot  open a case until you have received a conclusion or decision from Contractual Compliance. Following their response, we will evaluate whether the Ombuds Office can help you.

While your complaint is not yet a case with the Ombuds Office, I will continue to liaise with Contractual Compliance to ensure that they provide you with a response.

I note that you have asked for me to forward your correspondence to the appropriate Board or Accountability contact for transparency.  I will ask about the appropriate channels for this and respond.

Warm wishes,

Liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 6909 www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 9:40 PM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Ombuds Office Replicating Institutional Delay Pattern – Direct Questions Requiring Direct Answers (Case #01448650)

Dear Liz,

Thank you for your response dated 28 October 2025. I appreciate your acknowledgment of my frustration and your willingness to liaise with Compliance and seek appropriate Board channels.

However, I must respectfully but firmly state that your response does not address my core complaint but instead perpetuates the same pattern of institutional evasion I have documented for 111 days. Your email raises profound concerns about whether the Ombuds Office can function as an independent accountability mechanism when faced with systemic institutional delay.

This is no longer just about one registrant’s complaint — it is about whether ICANN’s accountability system can function when confronted with its own internal delay.

Unanswered Questions From My 19 October Correspondence

Before addressing the new concerns your 28 October email creates, I must note that my 19 October status inquiry posed three specific questions that remain entirely unanswered:

1. Has the Ombudsman Office received any communication from Compliance regarding my case or their response timeline?
2. What would be a reasonable timeframe to expect for Compliance’s detailed response?
3. If Compliance continues to remain silent despite Ombudsman escalation, would that itself constitute evidence of unfair treatment warranting Ombudsman review?

Your 28 October response did not address any of these questions. Instead, it introduced new indefinite delays and procedural barriers while providing excuses for Compliance’s continued non-response.

This pattern of non-response to direct questions is precisely the institutional behavior I am complaining about. When the Ombuds Office itself adopts this pattern, it validates my concerns about systemic accountability failure.

The Disturbing Parallel: Ombuds Office Replicating the Registrar’s Playbook

Liz, I must state something that deeply concerns me, and I ask you to consider it seriously:

The way the Ombuds Office is treating my case is substantively identical to the pattern I documented at https://loss.co/responses/ when I initially complained to Namecheap.

Please compare these responses:

Namecheap’s Pattern (June-September 2025):

• “We’re waiting for responses from upstream parties”
• “We cannot provide information until we hear from them”
• No definite timeline provided
• Repeated delays accompanied by sympathetic language
  “Shortly” / “Soon” with no binding commitment

Ombuds Office Pattern (October 2025):

• “Compliance is working on a detailed response”
• “I cannot open a case until you have received a conclusion”
• No definite timeline provided
• Repeated delays accompanied by sympathetic language
• “Shortly” / “May or may not” with no binding commitment

I ask you directly: What is the substantive difference between how the Ombuds Office is treating me now and how Namecheap treated me for months?

The parallel is not coincidental—it represents the same institutional behavior: sympathetic acknowledgment combined with indefinite delay and procedural barriers that prevent accountability.

The profound irony: I escalated to the Ombuds Office specifically because of this pattern of indefinite delays and unfair treatment. The Ombuds Office is now subjecting me to the exact same indefinite delays and procedural barriers.

My core complaint was about delay and procedural unfairness. By asking me to wait indefinitely with no timeline while Compliance continues not responding, your office is replicating—not remedying—the problem.

Why This Constitutes Unfair Treatment BY the Ombuds Office

Your 28 October email creates unfairness in multiple, specific ways:

1. You Are Enabling Indefinite Delay Without Accountability

Timeline of Institutional Failure:

• 111 days since ICANN Compliance received my complaint (11 July 2025 – 29 October 2025)
• 44 days since last substantive Compliance communication (16 September 2025 – 29 October 2025)
• 29 days since Ombuds escalation (1 October 2025 – 29 October 2025)
• 27 days since you confirmed Compliance was “working on detailed response” (3 October 2025 – 29 October 2025)
• 11 days since my status inquiry went unanswered (19 October 2025 – 29 October 2025)

Yet your 28 October email tells me:

• Compliance “may or may not” respond before November 4
• You cannot open a case until they respond
• No timeline for when they will respond
• No consequences if they continue not responding
• Board forwarding requires you to “ask about channels”

How is this substantively different from Namecheap telling me for months they were “waiting for responses” with no timeline or accountability?

2. The “Cannot Open Case” Barrier Creates Circular Logic That Nullifies Your Function

You state: “I cannot open a case until you have received a conclusion or decision from Contractual Compliance.”

But Liz, consider the logical problem this creates:

• 111 days without a conclusion demonstrates Compliance either cannot or will not conclude
• My complaint TO your office was specifically about Compliance’s failure to respond for 100+ days
• The ongoing lack of response IS the complaint that requires Ombuds investigation

Requiring Compliance to conclude before investigating why they cannot conclude creates an impossible catch-22 that eliminates the Ombuds Office’s ability to address procedural failures.

If this procedural barrier is absolute, then the Ombuds Office cannot investigate delay, cannot investigate non-response, and cannot investigate institutional evasion—which means it cannot address the core accountability failures it was established to remedy.

3. “May or May Not” Before November 4 Validates My Claims of Institutional Bad Faith

Your phrasing confirms that even now—after:

• Board visibility (28 October correspondence)
• Ombuds escalation (1 October, 29 days ago)
• 111+ days of total delay
• Multiple missed deadlines I have set

…ICANN Contractual Compliance:
Cannot commit to a response within 7 days

• Treats my November 4 deadline as discretionary
• Continues indefinite delay with apparent impunity

This validates every claim in my 28 October correspondence about institutional bad faith and procedural unfairness.

If Compliance cannot respond within 7 days after 111 days of preparation, this demonstrates either:

• Willful delay (they choose not to respond), or
• Systemic dysfunction (they are incapable of responding)

Both scenarios require immediate Ombuds investigation, not indefinite additional waiting.

4. The ICANN Public Meeting Explanation Does Not Withstand Scrutiny

Your email states: “I, and many ICANN org staff as well as community members, are currently at an ICANN Public Meeting so response times are slower.”

Liz, with respect, I must ask for clarification because this explanation raises more questions than it answers:

The Timeline Does Not Support This Explanation:

• ICANN Public Meeting duration: Approximately 20-25 October 2025 (~5-7 days)
• My case pending: 111 days (since 11 July 2025)
• Ombuds escalation: 29 days ago (1 October 2025)
• Last Compliance communication: 44 days ago (16 September 2025)
• Your Oct 3 promise of “detailed response”: 27 days ago

A five-day meeting cannot explain fifteen weeks of silence.

The Public Meeting may explain a few days of slower response times, but it cannot explain:

• 61 days of silence before the “October 2023 audit” was first disclosed (11 July – 10 September)
• 44 days since the last Compliance communication (16 September – 29 October)
• 100+ days of delay before the meeting even began
• 27 days since you confirmed they were preparing a response

5. Board Forwarding Should Not Require “Asking About Channels”

You state: “I will ask about the appropriate channels for this and respond.”

With respect, after 111+ days of documented institutional failure:

• This should not require asking — Board accountability pathways should be clear and established
• This should not be conditional — Board visibility is warranted by the delay magnitude alone
• This should not be indefinite — “will ask” provides no timeline or commitment

The ICANN Board was copied on my 28 October correspondence specifically because 111+ days of delay without resolution represents a Board-level governance failure requiring Board-level visibility.

Reducing this to “I’ll ask about appropriate channels” treats a 111-day institutional failure as a routine procedural matter rather than the systemic accountability breakdown it represents.

Documentation of Ombuds Office Unfulfilled Commitments

For the record, I want to document the timeline of your office’s involvement:

• 3 October 2025: You stated Compliance was “working on a detailed response” and I would receive it
• 14 October 2025: You acknowledged my email, said you were waiting for Compliance response
• 28 October 2025: Still no response from Compliance, you still cannot open case, Board forwarding still conditional

28 days of Ombuds Office involvement has produced:

• No investigation commenced
• No timeline established
• No Board notification confirmed
• No answers to my direct questions (19 October)
• No accountability mechanism activated
• Only: More procedural barriers, requests for patience, and facilitation of Compliance’s continued delay

This is not independent oversight. This is managed delay that protects the institution rather than the complainant.

The Fundamental Question Your Response Creates

Your email effectively tells me:

1. Wait indefinitely for Compliance (no timeline provided)
2. Ombuds cannot help until that indefinite wait concludes (procedural barrier)
3. Board forwarding may happen after asking about channels (no commitment)
4. November 4 deadline may or may not be met (my timeline is discretionary)
5. Public meeting explains delay (despite 111 days predating meeting)

Liz, I ask you directly and respectfully: If this is the extent of the Ombuds Office’s ability to address 111+ days of documented delay, contradictions, and procedural violations—then what is the Ombuds Office’s function?

If you cannot investigate until Compliance finishes their process, and Compliance demonstrates no ability or willingness to finish that process, then the Ombuds Office becomes a procedural dead-end that protects institutional delay rather than remedies it.

I do not believe this is what the Ombuds Office is meant to be. But your response provides no alternative conclusion.

Why Is the Ombuds Office Helping ICANN Compliance Secure More Time?

Liz, I must ask this question directly because it goes to the heart of the Ombuds Office’s independence:

Why is the Ombuds Office acting to help ICANN Compliance obtain more indefinite time, rather than holding them accountable for 111 days of unexplained delay?

Your role is supposed to be independent oversight of ICANN institutional processes. Yet your 28 October response:

• Accepts Compliance’s indefinite timeline without question
• Creates procedural barriers that shield them from scrutiny
• Provides institutional excuses for their delay (the meeting)
• Instructs me to continue waiting with no binding end date
• Frames my reasonable deadline as merely a “desire”

This appears to be advocacy for the institution’s timeline preferences, not fair treatment of the complainant.

When Namecheap did this—asking me to wait indefinitely while they “awaited responses” from upstream parties—I escalated to ICANN Compliance.

When ICANN Compliance did this—providing contradictory statements and then going silent—I escalated to the Ombuds Office.

When the Ombuds Office adopts the same pattern of indefinite delay with sympathetic language, where do I escalate within ICANN’s accountability framework?

Your office is supposed to be the answer to that question. If it cannot function when faced with institutional delay, then ICANN’s internal accountability mechanisms have no viable endpoint.

My Direct Questions Requiring Direct Answers

I respectfully but firmly request your written responses to these specific questions by 1 November 2025, 5:00 PM Malaysia Time (GMT+8):

On Ombuds Authority and Standards:

1. At what specific point does the length of delay itself become a procedural failure justifying an Ombuds investigation, independent of whether the delayed party has concluded their process?
2. Does the Ombuds Office maintain any internal standard or service-level agreement (SLA) for the maximum permissible response delay from ICANN departments before it intervenes? If such a standard exists, has the 111-day delay in this case not breached it?
3. Can you open a formal Ombuds case based on documented procedural failures and delay, or is the “cannot open until Compliance concludes” barrier absolute under all circumstances?
4. If the barrier is absolute, then how can the Ombuds Office investigate complaints about institutional delay and non-response when the very nature of the complaint is that the process never concludes?

On Public Meeting and Compliance Capacity:

5. Does ICANN Contractual Compliance suspend all registrant-related casework during public meetings?
   6. Did all Compliance staff attend the meeting, or were some available to work on pending cases during the 20-25 October period?
   7. What exactly were Compliance staff doing during the 100+ days before the Public Meeting began, when no response, update, or progress was provided despite multiple deadlines and follow-ups?
   8. ICANN operates the technical infrastructure for domain registrations. A simple database query using “malaysia.build” should instantly reveal: deletion date and authorization trail, audit flags or compliance actions, registry–registrar communications, and EPP transaction records. Given this, how can ICANN Contractual Compliance plausibly require 111+ days to produce information that should be immediately available within its own systems? This is not a complex legal question but a simple matter of executing standard database queries and retrieving audit records—something any technical staff could complete within hours.
   9. Can ICANN Compliance generate a substantive, documented response to my case? If YES, by what specific date? If NO, why not?

On Board Notification and Timeline:

10. Will you commit to forwarding my 28 October correspondence to the ICANN Board by a specific date (e.g., 1 November 2025), or is Board awareness of 111+ day institutional failures discretionary and conditional?
    11. If Board notification is conditional, what specific conditions must be met for the Board to be informed of a 111-day compliance failure?
    12. Can you provide a binding date by which either: (a) Compliance will provide their substantive response, OR (b) the Ombuds Office will formally investigate why they have not—not “may or may not,” not “shortly,” but a firm, date-certain commitment?

On Ombuds Office Independence:

13. What is the substantive difference between the Ombuds Office’s current treatment of my case (asking me to wait indefinitely for Compliance with no timeline) and Namecheap’s treatment of my case (asking me to wait indefinitely for upstream responses with no timeline)?
    14. Why is the Ombuds Office facilitating ICANN Compliance’s request for more indefinite time rather than holding them accountable for 111 days of documented delay?
    15. When the Ombuds Office itself adopts a pattern of indefinite delay with procedural barriers, where can a registrant escalate within ICANN’s internal accountability framework?

What I Am Requesting—Specifically

I want to be clear about what I am asking, because this is not a request for preferential treatment but a procedural demand that ICANN follow the same accountability standards it publicly promotes.

I am not asking you to override Compliance’s substantive decisions or make determinations about the domain dispute itself.

I am asking you to:

1. Recognize that 111+ days of delay is itself a procedural failure requiring investigation — not something to wait out indefinitely while the delayed party continues not responding.
2. Open a formal Ombuds case now, based on documented delay and procedural violations, rather than maintaining a procedural barrier that makes investigation impossible when delay is the core complaint.
3. Commit to forwarding my 28 October correspondence to the ICANN Board by 1 November 2025 — because a 111+ day institutional failure warrants Board visibility regardless of internal channel protocols.
4. Provide a binding, date-certain deadline — not “may or may not,” not “shortly,” not “we’ll see,” but a specific date by which either:

• Compliance WILL provide their substantive, documented response, OR
• The Ombuds Office WILL formally investigate why they have not

If the Ombuds Office cannot or will not take these basic steps to address an obvious pattern of institutional delay and evasion, then you must state this clearly so I can make informed decisions about whether internal ICANN processes remain viable or have reached their practical limits.

The Consequence of Continued Indefinite Delay

I stated in my 28 October correspondence that if no confirmation of Ombuds investigation was received by 4 November, I would understand that internal review processes had reached their practical limits.

Your 28 October response effectively confirms this understanding:

• You cannot open a case (procedural barrier)
• Compliance has no firm response timeline (“may or may not”)
• Board forwarding is conditional (requires “asking about channels”)
• My November 4 deadline is treated as discretionary (“desired deadline”)
• The pattern is identical to the registrar delay I originally complained about

If internal ICANN accountability processes cannot address 111+ days of documented institutional failure—even after escalation to the Ombuds Office, even after Board visibility—then those processes have demonstrably failed their accountability function.

In that case, external transparency and accountability measures are not my preference but become the only remaining option to ensure fair treatment and systemic accountability.

At this point, the issue is no longer lack of data, but lack of procedural will.

Closing

Liz, I genuinely respect the Ombuds function and I believe you take your role seriously. This email is not a personal attack—it is a necessary challenge to procedural barriers that, if they are truly absolute, would render the Ombuds Office unable to address the very institutional failures it was established to remedy.

But I must be direct about what I observe: The way your office is treating my case—asking me to wait indefinitely with sympathetic language but no timeline or accountability—is substantively identical to the institutional delay and procedural unfairness I complained about. The Ombuds Office is replicating the problem rather than remedying it.

For the sake of complete transparency, I must state that all correspondence in this matter will be documented and published. This includes not only the complete repository at https://loss.co, but also through the sustained public campaign I outlined on 28 October.

I must also offer this sincere advice: The story of this case—which could be titled “The 111-Day Silence: How ICANN’s Accountability System Failed a Registrant”—will be shared publicly across the internet. Once this narrative is disseminated through these channels, it will become a permanent part of the public record. As you know, what enters the digital realm remains there forever, and once an institution’s credibility and institutional integrity are lost, they are exceptionally difficult to reclaim.

1. 111+ days of delay cannot justify further indefinite delay.
2. 28 days of Ombuds involvement has produced no investigation, no timeline, no Board notification, and no answers—only more procedural barriers and facilitation of Compliance’s continued non-response.

If internal ICANN accountability mechanisms can function as intended, this is the moment they must demonstrate that capacity. If they cannot, then I need to understand that clearly rather than continue waiting indefinitely for a resolution that may never materialize.

I request your direct, substantive responses to all direct questions above by 1 November 2025, 5:00 PM Malaysia Time (GMT+8).

This timeline gives you reasonable opportunity to respond while recognizing that after 111 days of total delay and 29 days of Ombuds involvement, further indefinite waiting is not procedurally fair or institutionally defensible.

Respectfully but firmly,

Wong Tai Chiew

Former Registrant – malaysia.build
[email protected]
+60 19-828 0131
Complete Documentation: https://loss.co
ICANN Case Ref: #01448650

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 5:13 PM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Subject: FORMAL NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE — ICANN OMBUDS CASE #01448650 — 1 NOV 17:00 MYT DEADLINE MISSED

Date: 1 November 2025, 17:15 MYT

Dear Ombuds Elizabeth Field & ICANN Board,

As of 1 November 2025, 17:00 Malaysia Time (GMT+8) — the deadline explicitly set in my 29 October 2025 email — NO RESPONSE has been received to 15 direct, numbered questions demanding date-certain answers.

This non-response is hereby documented as the final, irrefutable proof of TOTAL SYSTEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE across ICANN Contractual Compliance, the Ombuds Office, and the Board oversight chain.

TIMELINE OF INSTITUTIONAL COLLAPSE (143+ DAYS)

Date	Event	Days Silent
11 Jun 2025	Domain malaysia.build removed without authorization — no EPP, no notice	—
11 Jul 2025	ICANN Compliance Case #01448650 opened	—
13 Aug 2025	ICANN denies authority to order removal	—
10 Sep 2025	“October 2023 Audit” introduced — 61 days late	—
16 Sep 2025	Last Compliance reply (templated)	46 days
22 Sep 2025	7-day deadline to Compliance — ignored	—
26 Sep 2025	48-hour demands to Namecheap, Enom, .BUILD — all ignored	—
1 Oct 2025	Ombuds Escalation — “Compliance working on detailed response”	—
3 Oct 2025	Ombuds: “You will receive it”	—
14 Oct 2025	Ombuds: “Still waiting”	—
19 Oct 2025	100-day status update — no reply	13 days
28 Oct 2025	Ombuds: “May or may not before 4 Nov”	—
29 Oct 2025	15 Direct Questions + 1 Nov 17:00 MYT Deadline	—
1 Nov 2025, 17:00 MYT	DEADLINE MISSED — NO REPLY	0 days
TOTAL SILENCE SINCE LAST COMPLIANCE REPLY		46+ days
TOTAL SINCE DOMAIN REMOVAL		143 days

SYSTEM FAILURE CONFIRMED — 29 OCTOBER EMAIL (EXCERPTS)

“The Ombuds Office is replicating — not remedying — the institutional delay pattern I complained about.”

“You cannot open a case until Compliance concludes — but Compliance demonstrates no ability or willingness to conclude.”

“This creates an impossible catch-22 that eliminates the Ombuds Office’s ability to address procedural failures.”

“If internal ICANN accountability processes cannot address 111+ days of documented institutional failure — even after escalation to the Ombuds Office — then those processes have demonstrably failed their accountability function.”

→ All 15 questions remain UNANSWERED.
→ The Ombuds Office has adopted the same procedural pattern as Namecheap: “We’re waiting… shortly… may or may not.”

THIS IS NOT A DELAY. THIS IS A DOCUMENTED BREACH OF ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS.

Evidence of Procedural Failure	Proven By
Contradictory Authority Statements	Registry: “ICANN requested removal” → ICANN: “No authority”
Retroactive “Audit” Disclosure	Introduced 61 days late, no documentary evidence provided
Removal Without EPP or Due Process	Nearly a decade domain deleted 5 months before expiry
Coordinated Non-Response	120+ emails, 15+ deadlines — zero substantive replies
Ombuds Inaction	32 days of involvement → no case opened, no timeline, no Board notification

THE CONSEQUENCE OF YOUR NON-RESPONSE

Your non-response now establishes that ICANN’s internal accountability mechanisms — including the Ombudsman’s Office — are not merely delayed, but structurally incapable of addressing documented procedural failures.

No further internal deadlines will be honored.
No further patience will be extended.

SINCERE FINAL REMINDER (AS STATED 29 OCTOBER 2025)

For the sake of complete transparency, I must state that all correspondence in this matter will be documented and published. This includes not only the complete repository at https://loss.co, but also through the sustained public campaign I outlined on 28 October.

I must also offer this sincere advice: The story of this case — which could be titled “The 143-Day Silence: How ICANN’s Accountability System Failed a Registrant” — will be shared publicly across the internet. Once this narrative is disseminated through these channels, it will become a permanent part of the public record. As you know, what enters the digital realm remains there forever, and once an institution’s credibility and institutional integrity are lost, they are exceptionally difficult to reclaim.

This notice is provided without prejudice to any rights, claims, or remedies available to the complainant.
All correspondence will be published in real time at https://loss.co.

Respectfully — but finally,
Wong Tai Chiew
Former Registrant — malaysia.build
[email protected] | +60 19-828 0131
ICANN Case Ref: #01448650

CC: ICANN Board
Evidence: https://loss.co

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 12:21 AM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Dear Ombuds Elizabeth Field & ICANN Board,

URGENT CORRECTION TO 1 NOV 17:15 MYT EMAIL (FORMAL NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE)

The timeline entry:

11 Jun 2025: Domain malaysia.build removed without authorization — no EPP, no notice

Should read:

11 Jun 2025: First complaint to Namecheap upon discovery of unauthorized removal of malaysia.build

The following line in the timeline section:

TOTAL SINCE DOMAIN REMOVAL: 143 days

Is incorrect and should read:

TOTAL SINCE DISCOVERY & FIRST COMPLAINT TO NAMECHEAP (11 Jun 2025): 143 days TOTAL SINCE UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL (December 2023): ~690 days

Clarification:

• Domain removed without authorization: December 2023 (no EPP code, no notice)
• Discovery and first complaint to Namecheap: 11 June 2025
• 143 days = from discovery and escalation to 1 November 2025 (inclusive)
• ~690 days = from actual removal to 1 November 2025

This correction strengthens the documented institutional failure:

• No registrant notice for ~690 days after removal
• 143 days of coordinated silence after formal complaint

All other facts, warnings, and consequences in the 17:15 MYT email remain unchanged and fully accurate.

This notice is provided without prejudice to any rights, claims, or remedies.

Respectfully — with precision,

Wong Tai Chiew

Former Registrant – malaysia.build [email protected] | +60 19-828 0131 ICANN Case Ref: #01448650 Evidence: https://loss.co

CC: ICANN Board, Compliance, Reconsideration

From: ombuds <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:23 PM
To: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Cc: ombuds <[email protected]>

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

I hope you are well.  I acknowledge receipt of your below email and your correction email.

I understand and acknowledge your frustration. You have outlined a number of issues that your are rightly concerned about. I apologize for the delay in response but unfortunately I was travelling and not available. The Ombuds Office has a 3-5 working day response timescale and this response is within that timescale.

On your questions to the Ombuds Office, while this is not a case with the Office currently, I am looking for ways to help. I have been in touch directly with ICANN Contractual Compliance. While they have not given a definite timeframe, they are conscious of the need to provide you with a response as quickly as possible and you will receive a response.  It may be worth noting that there is not a specific binding timeframe for Contractual Compliance responses as different cases may require more time.  What is reasonable in a given case will vary, without assessing the facts related to your case I cannot say whether the timeframe for your case is reasonable. However, I do acknowledge that from your perspective and experience this is upsetting and frustrating, especially in the context of your situation.  I spoke again with Contractual Compliance who have advised me, as previously, that the response is forthcoming.

In previous correspondence, you indicated several issues that you potentially wanted to complain about to the Ombuds Office.  If this is the case, then I require Contractual Compliance’s final decision and your complaint in response to this decision.  This is because I will determine whether the issues you want the Office to review and evaluate are within the Ombuds Office scope on the basis of this decision.

However, if, based on your correspondence below,  your complaint is only about the delay in receiving a response from Contractual Compliance, then I can proceed to get some information from you and assess the next steps.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 6909 www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

From: DotCoName <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 11:12 PM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Subject: FINAL NOTICE: Ombudsman Complicity in 147-Day Evasion – Absolute Deadline 4 Nov, 24:00 MYT

Dear Liz,

Your reply of 3 November confirms that the Ombuds Office remains trapped in—and is now actively perpetuating—the same structural accountability failure it was established to remedy.

What has unfolded over 147 days is not merely a procedural delay, but the complete collapse of ICANN’s internal accountability system. Your office’s current interpretation of its mandate has effectively neutralized its oversight function, transforming it from a safeguard into an obstacle.

My concern is no longer the delay, but the demonstrable collapse of ICANN’s accountability framework, with the Ombudsman now enforcing the procedural catch-22 that nullifies it.

This failure spans 147 days, from the start to this moment:
• 11 Jun 2025: First complaint to Namecheap. Day 1.
• 1 Oct – 3 Nov 2025: 34 days of empty promises from your office after my official complaint, culminating in your latest email that offers no path forward, only excuses.

For over a month, your office’s only function has been to relay Compliance’s non-committal statements while hiding behind a rule that requires a “decision” from a department that refuses to issue one. A 147-day delay is not a complex case; it is definitive evidence of maladministration.

Your office has failed in its core purpose. Specifically, you have:

• Failed to clarify all the fundamental catch-22s I detailed, which grant ICANN departments an indefinite veto over your oversight.
• Failed to explain why 147 days does not, in itself, constitute definitive evidence of maladministration.
• Failed to provide a single substantive answer to my direct questions, issuing only evasive, pointless replies that facilitate further delay.

A legitimate accountability office would recognize this delay as the core violation and act. Your failure to do so is a dereliction of duty.

The time for your office to “liaise” and “assess” has expired. You have been given 147 days—34 of them under your watch—to demonstrate accountability. The result is total failure.

This is the absolute deadline. If by 4 November 2025, 24:00 Malaysia Time (GMT+8), I have not received BOTH:

1. Confirmation that a formal Ombudsman case has been opened to investigate the 147-day procedural failure of ICANN Contractual Compliance, AND
2. The substantive, detailed response from ICANN Compliance that was promised,

I will conclude that ICANN’s internal accountability is a fiction.

Upon this deadline, I will immediately commence the public campaign I outlined. This is a final reminder: once launched, this campaign will make ICANN’s systemic failure well-known worldwide. This is a one-way ticket.

The time for assessment is over. The deadline is final.

Wong Tai Chiew

Former Registrant — malaysia.build

[email protected] | +60 19-828 0131

ICANN Case Ref: #01448650

Dear TAI CHIEW WONG,

Thank you for your additional communications to ICANN Contractual Compliance.

Below is a summary of the information ICANN provided you with so far, along with further details addressing your latest inquiries:

1. Your Question: “Issue: 2014 Allocation vs. Reserved Status; Was “Malaysia” on the Reserved Names List in 2014? If so, why was it allocated? If not, why is enforcement applied retroactively after a decade?”

On 7 November 2013, the Registry Operator and ICANN entered into a Registry Agreement (RA), pursuant to which the Registry Operator operates the .build generic top-level domain (gTLD). The covenants that both parties, Registry Operator and ICANN, must adhere to are set forth in this agreement, which is available at .build Registry Agreement.

According to Section 4 of Specification 5 of the .build Registry Agreement, the Registry Operator must reserve (i.e., withhold from registration) certain country and territory names, and this list of protected names includes Malaysia. The Registry Agreement also offers guidelines for registry operators to reach approval from the relevant government for the release of second-level country and territory names (see https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/reserved-names/country-and-territory-names). According to the information available to ICANN regarding this matter, the Registry Operator did not seek approval for the release of this second-level domain name; instead, it released the name by mistake. Accordingly, the release of the name in 2014, after the Registry executed its RA in 2013, violated Section 4 of Specification 5 of the RA.

In August 2023, the 2023 Audit round was launched and the Registry Operator of .build was selected as an auditee. Information about the audit program is available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/audits-2012-02-25-en. Not all registry operators are selected for each audit round. Different registry operators are selected in different audit rounds based on different criteria. This Registry Operator had not been audited before, nor had ICANN received a complaint or indications of the improper release of this name prior to the 2023 Audit.

You asked why enforcement was “applied retroactively after a decade”. Please note that there was no retroactive enforcement. The obligation was in effect in 2014 and remains in force; it has been enforced consistently throughout the years. Registry Operators are expected and required to comply with their Registry Agreements without ICANN’s intervention. Enforcement actions are taken only when noncompliance is detected, and it was during the 2023 Audit that this particular violation was discovered.

Upon identifying the noncompliance and notifying the Registry Operator, the Registry Operator presented ICANN with remediation measures to resolve the noncompliance with its Registry Agreement. In this case, the remediation measures proposed by the Registry Operator included the deletion and reservation of the protected name that had been erroneously released.

ICANN’s agreements contain multiple requirements designed to protect registrants, including provisions to ensure transparency about the terms and conditions applicable to domain name registrations. This includes the obligation in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for registrars to enter into an agreement with each registrant that contains certain mandatory terms. Section 3.7.7.11 of the RAA mandates the registrar to include it its registration agreement with registrants that: “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.” In this case, malaysia.build was deleted and reserved to correct the mistake by the Registry Operator in registering the domain name.

The registration agreement you entered into with the registrar when registering the domain name was required, pursuant to the terms of the registrar’s agreements with ICANN, to include this information.

2. Your Question: “Issue: Procedural compliance; Why was the domain removed without (a) an EPP code and (b) pre-deletion notice? Do the registrar’s inconsistent responses constitute RAA non-compliance under §§3.4.3 and 3.18?”

As explained above, the Registry Operator deleted the domain name and reserved it to correct an erroneous release that put the Registry Operator out of compliance with its Registry Agreement.

According to Section 3.4.3 of the RAA that you reference in your question, registrars must make specified data, information, and records available to ICANN during the term of the agreement and for two years after. Section 3.18 of the RAA refers to a registrar’s obligation to investigate and respond to abuse reports and to publish abuse contact details. These sections are not relevant to the present case. There is no indication that the registrar failed to comply with these or any other requirements in the RAA. Additionally, there is no RAA obligation to send a prior notification to the registrant when domain names are deleted due to the correction of mistakes.

Information about registrant rights and responsibilities, including information that must be made accessible to registrants, can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en.

There are also requirements regarding notifications related to the expiration of domain names that may subsequently be deleted; however, these do not apply here, as the domain name did not expire.

Please note that neither the Transfer Policy, which contains requirements related to the inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers, nor the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) apply to this case (although you referenced them in prior communications). This is because the domain name was neither transferred nor deleted due to its expiration.

3. Your Question: “Contradictory Claims of ICANN’s Role; Did ICANN instruct the registry to remove the domain, or did the registry misrepresent ICANN’s role to justify the removal?”

ICANN Contractual Compliance enforces the specific requirements outlined in the RAA, the RAs, and ICANN Consensus Policies.

ICANN informed you that, beyond the terms and exceptions explicitly provided by the RA and ICANN Consensus Policies, ICANN has no contractual authority to instruct a registry operator to delete or release a domain name. ICANN also provided you with information about the requirements in the RA to reserve the label “Malaysia,” the 2023 Audit, the detection of the violation, communication with the Registry Operator, and the subsequent deletion of the domain name by the Registry Operator to correct its noncompliance.

If the Registry Operator releases a domain name, that must be protected in accordance with Section 4 of Specification 5 of the RA, without obtaining approval from the relevant government that is a violation of its RA. The options to be compliant are outlined in the RA, and further explained at

https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/reserved-names/country-and-territory-names#reserved

ICANN Contractual Compliance does not have the authority to exempt a registry operator from complying with the requirements of the RA. Similarly ICANN has no authority, contractual or otherwise, to require a registry operator to choose one option over the other (i.e., reserving vs. seeking authorization) where both options are compliant with the RA; ICANN assesses that the registry operator is compliant with the relevant agreement.

4. Your Question: “Issue GAC Consultation Requirement; Was Malaysia’s GAC-designated contact consulted/notified before allocation (2014) or removal (2023)?

ICANN Contractual Compliance detected a violation of the Registry Agreement and presented its findings to the Registry Operator, including the specific requirement that was not met. The Registry Operator did not provide any information to ICANN indicating whether it had sought approval from Malaysia’s representative in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to release the domain name. While there is no contractual obligation for a registry operator to notify ICANN when such approval is obtained, if a potential violation is detected and ICANN inquires about it, the registry operator must provide evidence that approval was obtained if the name was released. In this case, the Registry Operator did not provide this information to ICANN and stated that the release had been made in error which it subsequently corrected.

5. Your Question: “Cross-TLD Enforcement Consistency; Why is malaysia.build removed while peru.travel and greece.travel remain active under other new gTLDs? How does ICANN ensure consistent enforcement?”

The Audit Program is conducted twice a year: once for registries and once for registrars. Parties are selected based on multiple factors; not all registries or registrars are audited during each round. All requirements are reviewed and enforced equally across all audited parties, in accordance with their agreements with ICANN.

In addition, ICANN Contractual Compliance investigates noncompliance issues through the processing of external complaints. There is an established process that ICANN follows; details can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en, and this process is applied consistently across all registrars and registry operators.

ICANN has not received a complaint regarding peru.travel or greece.travel, nor had it otherwise detected the release of these domain names. Please confirm whether your intention is to submit a formal complaint about the release of these two domain names.

6. Your Question: “Issue Transparency, Notice & Appeal; What notification or appeal mechanisms exist for registrants in Spec 5 enforcement cases? Was the registry’s silence and lack of response consistent with ICANN’s principles of transparency and accountability?”

In your previous communications, you also inquired about why registrants are not informed about the audit process.

Information about the ICANN Contractual Compliance Audit Program can be found at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/audits-2012-02-25-en. After each audit is completed, ICANN Contractual Compliance publishes a final report detailing the audit results. The final report for the August 2023 audit is here.

Registries and registrars are notified in advance when they are selected for an audit. ICANN does not have information about individual registrants, nor does it have the authority to contact registrants directly. ICANN has contracts with registrars and registry operators and from these contracts ICANN derives its enforcement authority.

Registrars and registry operators are expected and required to comply with the RAA, the RA, and ICANN Consensus Policies without the need for enforcement by ICANN. These agreements and policies include requirements designed to preserve the stability, security, and resiliency of the Domain Name System and to protect the rights of registrants and other parties, such as the countries and territory whose names are protected (reserved) in accordance with Section 4 of Specification 5 of the RA.

ICANN Contractual Compliance does not have the authority to exempt a registry operator from complying with the requirements of the RA. Similarly, ICANN has no authority, contractual or otherwise, to require a registry operator to choose one compliant option over another (e.g., reserving vs. seeking authorization) when both options comply with the RA. ICANN’s role is to assess whether the registry operator is in compliance with the relevant agreement.

There is no appeal mechanism for registrants related to Specification 5 under the RA. ICANN cannot provide you with legal advice regarding whether other remedies may exist if you believe the Registry Operator or registrar violated their agreements with you; ICANN is not a party to those agreements.

Your communication dated 10 September 2025 included questions regarding the ICANN Audit, concerns about “retroactive” and “selective” enforcement, and requests for clarification on these issues. You reiterated similar concerns in subsequent emails. We have addressed your questions in our responses above, specifically referencing the points you identified in your chart. You concluded your message by requesting confirmation of contractual compliance, procedural obligations, and accountability under the RA, RAA, Transfer Policy, and GAC-related requirements. As detailed above, we have provided explanations for each of these areas.

Please be assured that we have thoroughly reviewed your questions and have responded multiple times. While ICANN strives to be as transparent and supportive as possible, we must operate within the limits of contractual authority.

We have provided you with all the information at our disposal regarding the questions you presented and the matter at hand. There is no indication that a registry operator or a registrar failed to comply with an ICANN policy and agreement. Accordingly, ICANN Contractual Compliance does not have the authority to take any action in this matter. Nevertheless, we remain available should you have any further questions that have not already been presented and addressed. If so, please let us know by 12 Nov 2025.

If you have any additional questions, please send them via reply email (no more than 20 MB total) and do not change the email subject heading. Please provide any records as attachments in .CSV, .PDF, .DOC(X), .XLS, .XLS(X) or .TXT formats.

If we do not hear from you by 12 Nov 2025, we will close this case.

Sincerely,

ICANN Contractual Compliance

Case Number 01448650 – Additional information for Reserved Names complaint re: [ ref:!00D6106tJk.!500Rm0ouQhV:ref ]

DotCoName <[email protected]>	Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 10:04 PM
To: ombuds <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]> Bcc: [email protected], Namecheap Domains Support Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Namecheap Risk Management Team <[email protected]>, Namecheap Legal & Abuse Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
TO: ICANN Ombudsman, Board, Malaysia GAC Representative, MCMC Subject: Case #01448650 – ICANN Responded in 9 Hours After Public Campaign, Ignored 117 Days + Multiple Deadlines – Systemic Accountability Failure Proven Date: 5 November 2025 From: Wong Tai Chiew (IC# 710708-13-5207), Former Registrant – malaysia.build Case: #01448650 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION This case demonstrates that ICANN’s accountability mechanisms require public shaming to function – a finding that should alarm every stakeholder in the multi-stakeholder model. What happened: ICANN Contractual Compliance ignored 117 days of internal process, my formal 22 September deadline, 34 days of Ombudsman involvement, and my final 4 November deadline—but responded within 9 hours of my public accountability campaign and complaint to Malaysia’s GAC representative. Why it matters: This proves ICANN’s accountability system only functions when publicly pressured, not through its own internal mechanisms—a fundamental governance failure with implications for all registrants and national sovereignty over country names. What’s needed now: Ombudsman: Open formal investigation within 24 hours (117-day delay violates your own SLA) Board: Acknowledge receipt and initiate independent review within 24 hours Malaysia GAC/MCMC: Determine if Malaysia’s sovereign name was mishandled in violation of ICANN agreements The evidence is irrefutable. The timeline below proves everything. PART 1: THE UNDENIABLE PROOF – TIMELINE OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE Date Event ICANN Rule/Standard Violated 11 Jul 2025 Case #01448650 opened — 13 Aug 2025 ICANN denies authority to instruct registries Contradicted by Registry’s 1 Dec 2023 email: “requested by ICANN” 19 Aug 2025 Comprehensive evidence submitted (11 attachments) — 10 Sep 2025 ICANN introduces “October 2023 Audit” (61 days late) Audit Transparency Policy – why hidden for 61 days? 16 Sep 2025 Last Compliance reply (template) — 22 Sep 2025 MY FORMAL 7-DAY DEADLINE TO COMPLIANCE IGNORED 26 Sep 2025 Formal 48-hour demands to Namecheap, Enom, .build Registry All ignored 1 Oct 2025 Ombudsman escalation — 3 Oct 2025 Ombudsman: “Compliance working on detailed response” — 14 Oct 2025 Ombudsman acknowledges escalation, “waiting for Compliance” Continued silence → Violation of Ombudsman SLA (3–5 working days) 19 Oct 2025 100-day status update to Ombudsman No response (violates Ombuds 3-5 day SLA) 29 Oct 2025 15 direct questions + 1 Nov deadline to Ombudsman — 1 Nov 2025, 17:00 MYT 1 NOV DEADLINE MISSED Ombudsman SLA violated (3-5 days) 3 Nov 2025 Ombudsman: “May or may not respond before 4 Nov” Admits no binding timeline exists 4 Nov 2025, 24:00 MYT FINAL ABSOLUTE DEADLINE IGNORED 5 Nov 2025, 00:54 MYT I LAUNCH PUBLIC CAMPAIGN + FILE MALAYSIA GAC COMPLAINT — 5 Nov 2025, 10:10 MYT COMPLIANCE RESPONDS – 9 HOURS AFTER CAMPAIGN After 117 days + ignored deadlines LET THE RECORD SHOW: ICANN Contractual Compliance ignored: 117 days of internal process My 22 September 7-day deadline 34 days of Ombudsman involvement My final 4 November deadline But responded within 9 hours of: Public accountability campaign launch Formal complaint to Malaysia’s GAC representative This is not accountability. This is reputation-driven damage control. This proves ICANN’s internal mechanisms are systemically broken. PART 2: COMPLIANCE’S “DETAILED RESPONSE” – MATERIAL CONTRADICTIONS After 117 days, ICANN Compliance’s response contains fatal contradictions that collapse under basic scrutiny: CONTRADICTION #1: August or October Audit? 10 September 2025 email: “The October 2023 Audit round was launched…” – see https://loss.co/icann-contractual-compliance-complete-email-trail/#109 5 November 2025 email: “The final report for the August 2023 audit is here.” Which is it? This is not a typo—this is a two-month discrepancy in the same case regarding the audit that supposedly justifies deleting my domain. ICANN demands precision from registrants but cannot keep its own audit timeline straight. CONTRADICTION #2: Impossible Timeline Compliance’s claim: August 2023 audit detected violation Actual deletion date: 5 December 2023 Gap: 3+ months after audit completion How does an audit from August trigger a deletion in December? This timeline makes no logical sense. Audits are completed and reported within weeks, not months later. CONTRADICTION #3: ICANN’s Authority 13 August 2025 (ICANN): “ICANN organization has no contractual authority to instruct a registry operator to release a reserved name.” 1 December 2023 (Registry to Enom): “We have been requested by ICANN to remove / Block the domain malaysia.build.” 5 November 2025 (ICANN): Claims there’s no contradiction because ICANN “detected” violation and “presented findings” but didn’t “instruct.” This is semantic evasion. When ICANN notifies a Registry of noncompliance requiring remediation, the functional result is indistinguishable from an instruction. The Registry’s own words were “requested by ICANN.” Demand: Provide the exact text of ICANN’s communication to .BUILD Registry regarding malaysia.build. This document will resolve the contradiction definitively. PART 3: THE SPECIFICATION 5 CATCH-22 – WHY IT’S NOT A VALID DEFENSE Compliance’s entire defense rests on Specification 5 (country name reservation). But this defense creates an impossible Catch-22 that exposes systemic failure: The Registry’s Admission Compliance’s quote: “The Registry Operator… stated that the release had been made in error which it subsequently corrected.” Compliance’s quote: “malaysia.build was deleted and reserved to correct the mistake by the Registry Operator in registering the domain name.” Compliance’s quote: “…deletion and reservation of the protected name that had been erroneously released.” The Impossible Logic IF Spec 5 truly prohibited “malaysia.build” in 2014: The Registry’s systems should have blocked it at registration (this is what technical safeguards are for) The fact that it was accepted and renewed 10 times over 3,287 days proves system failure The mistake was institutional, not registrant-caused I, as registrant: Registered through proper ICANN-accredited channels (29 April 2014) Made 10 consecutive annual renewal payments (2014-2023) Received 10 confirmations of registration, renewal, WHOIS publication, DNS resolution Had no reason to suspect any violation Invested 30+ months in commercial development Operated in complete good faith The Implausibility of “Oversight” Malaysia is: One of fewer than 200 countries worldwide A G20 member state Subject of massive international coverage in 2014 (MH370 tragedy – March 2014, weeks before my registration) Subject of ongoing international coverage 2015-2023 (1MDB scandal) How could the Registry “miss” Malaysia as a country name for 3,287 days? A simple Google search for “ISO 3166 country list” yields results in seconds. The Registry was contractually bound to implement Spec 5 protections. Yet they: Accepted my registration in 2014 Processed 10 renewals (2014-2023) Published 10 WHOIS records Enabled 10 years of DNS resolution Collected fees from me, Namecheap, Enom, the .build Registry and ICANN Then suddenly in 2023: “Oops, our mistake—domain deleted, no notice, no compensation.” Legal Principle: Estoppel In law, this is called estoppel (or legitimate reliance): When an authority enables a party to rely on something for many years, it cannot later revoke it without: Due process (notice, opportunity to be heard) Compensation for reliance damages Good faith dealings All parties profited (Namecheap, Enom, the .build Registry, ICANN) for 10 years. Why should the registrant bear 100% of financial harm? Real-World Analogy Landlord scenario: You rent an apartment for 10 years Landlord accepts rent, renews lease 10 times Year 10: “Our lease always prohibited pets—you’re evicted immediately, no notice, no refund” You: “You approved my pet deposit, accepted 10 years of rent knowing I had a dog, renewed the lease knowing I had a dog. You can’t invoke that rule NOW without compensating my reliance.” Parking scenario: You park in same spot for 9 years Authority issues permits, collects fees, renews annually Year 10: They tow your car—”This was always a no-parking zone” Their Catch-22: If always no-parking, why issue 10 permits? If it only became no-parking now, retroactive enforcement is unlawful. Either way, remedy is owed. Why Spec 5 Defense Fails Compliance cannot simultaneously claim: Spec 5 prohibited malaysia.build in 2014 (so why was it accepted?) The Registry made an “error” in 2014 (so it’s the Registry’s fault, not mine) I should bear 100% of financial losses (why?) No remedy is available (how is this just?) This Catch-22 means at least one of these must fail: Either the rule didn’t apply, OR The Registry violated its contract, OR ICANN failed its oversight function, OR Remedy is owed to the good-faith registrant You cannot escape all four. THE ADMISSION THAT DESTROYS THEIR DEFENSE Compliance’s response contains this devastating admission: The Registry Operator did not seek approval for the release of this second-level domain name; instead, it released the name by mistake. This confirms: ·         The violation was institutional (Registry error), not registrant misconduct ·         All harm stems from third-party failure, not my actions ·         ICANN now punishes the victim rather than fixing the system that failed When a bank makes an accounting error, it doesn’t seize customer assets to correct its mistake. When a government agency errs, it doesn’t punish citizens for bureaucratic failures. Why does ICANN’s framework allow this? PART 4: CRITICAL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REQUIRING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE After 117 days, Compliance still refuses to provide basic evidence: DEMAND 1: Audit Documentation Complete audit report section referencing malaysia.build specifically Specific finding that flagged the domain Date noncompliance was detected Date Registry was notified Your generic audit link mentions nothing about malaysia.build DEMAND 2: ICANN-Registry Communications Exact text of ICANN’s notification to .BUILD Registry (Oct-Dec 2023) Registry’s proposed remediation plan ICANN’s acceptance/approval Any discussion of registrant notification requirements This resolves the “authority” contradiction definitively DEMAND 3: Evidence of Registrant Notification Any attempt by Registry to notify me before deletion Any requirement ICANN placed on Registry to notify registrants Any guidance ICANN gave Registry on handling existing registrations Compliance admits: “there is no RAA obligation to send a prior notification to the registrant when domain names are deleted due to the correction of mistakes.” But whose mistake? Not mine. Why should the registrant bear all losses for the Registry’s system failure? DEMAND 4: Explanation of Enforcement Inconsistency Compliance’s quote: “ICANN has not received a complaint regarding peru.travel or greece.travel, nor had it otherwise detected the release of these domain names.” These domains: peru.travel: Registered 2006, still active (19+ years) greece.travel: Registered 2012, still active (13+ years) malaysia.build: Registered 2014, deleted 2023 (9 years) Questions: Why did audits not detect peru.travel / greece.travel if audits systematically review Spec 5 compliance? This proves enforcement is reactive (complaint-driven) not proactive (audit-driven) as claimed Why should I trigger complaints against other innocent registrants who acted in good faith like me? This is selective, inconsistent enforcement. DEMAND 5: EPP Transaction Logs EPP deletion command for malaysia.build Authorization chain showing who ordered deletion Registry system logs showing deletion event Proof deletion occurred on 5 December 2023 (not earlier/later) ICANN operates the technical infrastructure. These records exist in your systems. DEMAND 6: Explanation of 61-Day Audit Disclosure Delay Timeline: 11 July 2025: I file complaint 13 August 2025: ICANN responds (no mention of audit) Multiple emails exchanged (no mention of audit) 10 September 2025: ICANN suddenly introduces “October 2023 Audit” explanation (61 days after case opened) Why the 61-day delay? The audit information was instantly available in your systems. A simple database query using “malaysia.build” would reveal audit flags immediately. This delayed disclosure appears retroactive—a convenient explanation offered only after I submitted extensive evidence of procedural violations on 19 August 2025. PART 5: THE DUE PROCESS VOID Compliance’s admission: “There is no appeal mechanism for registrants related to Specification 5 under the RA.” This confirms a complete absence of due process: No prior notice of alleged violation before deletion No opportunity to contest the alleged “reserved status” No appeal process after deletion No remedy available even for good-faith registrants ICANN disclaims responsibility for fixing the harm Compare to legitimate regulatory frameworks: Framework Due Process Rights ICANN Spec 5 Criminal law Notice, hearing, appeal ❌ None Administrative law Right to be heard before adverse action ❌ None Consumer protection Right to dispute decisions ❌ None Contract law Right to cure before termination ❌ None Domain expiration 5-day notice before deletion (ERRP) ❌ None Domain transfers Authorization required (Transfer Policy) ❌ None Why do domains deleted for expiration get 5 days notice, but domains deleted for “mistakes” get zero notice? Why do domain transfers require explicit authorization, but domain deletions require nothing? This is a procedural void that makes ICANN’s “registrant protection” claims meaningless. PART 6: QUESTIONS FOR MALAYSIA GAC REPRESENTATIVE & MCMC As Malaysia’s official representatives in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and national telecommunications regulator, you should be aware: Issue 1: Was Malaysia’s Sovereign Name Protected or Exploited? Specification 5 exists to protect countries’ sovereign names. But in this case: 2014: Registry accepted registration of “malaysia.build” despite Spec 5 2014-2023: All parties (Registry, Upstream/Downstream Provider, Registrar, ICANN) profited from my payments for 9+ years 2023: Domain suddenly deleted based on “audit findings” with no registrant notice 2025: ICANN disclaims any responsibility to remedy harm Questions for Malaysia GAC: Was Malaysia’s GAC representative consulted before the 2014 registration was allowed? Was Malaysia’s GAC representative consulted before the 2023 deletion? Did the Registry seek Malaysia’s approval at any point (as Spec 5 permits)? Is Malaysia aware that its country name is being used as justification to harm good-faith registrants without due process? Issue 2: The “malaysia.build” Domain Was Promoting Malaysia The domain was being developed to: Showcase Malaysian real estate developments Promote Malaysian property market internationally Support Malaysian businesses and agents Integrate with Malaysian payment systems (FPX via PayNet) Feature Malaysian-specific property attributes (land titles, Feng Shui, etc.) Demo site: https://malaysia.sibu.design Evidence: https://loss.co Video Demos: https://loss.co/videos This was not abuse of Malaysia’s name—it was promotion of Malaysia’s interests. Question: Does Malaysia’s government want ICANN’s framework to enable deletion of domains promoting Malaysian commercial interests—especially when the registrant is Malaysian? Issue 3: Implications for National Digital Sovereignty If ICANN’s framework permits: Registration of country names for 9+ years Sudden deletion without notice based on retroactive “audits” No consultation with affected countries No remedy for good-faith registrants Then no country’s digital sovereignty is protected. Any domain using country names can be deleted arbitrarily under the guise of “mistake correction.” This undermines the GAC’s entire purpose in ICANN governance. PART 7: THE OMBUDSMAN’S PROCEDURAL CATCH-22 Ombudsman’s position: “I cannot open a case until you have received a conclusion or decision from Contractual Compliance.” But this creates an impossible situation: Compliance delayed 117 days without concluding My complaint to Ombudsman was specifically about Compliance’s failure to respond Requiring Compliance to conclude before investigating why they won’t conclude is circular logic This means the Ombudsman cannot investigate delay, non-response, or institutional evasion The proof: Compliance only responded after public pressure—exactly what the Ombudsman is supposed to prevent. The Ombudsman’s rule makes it impossible to address the core accountability failure it was established to remedy. PART 8: THE BOARD’S GOVERNANCE FAILURE The ICANN Board was copied on: 28 October: 111-day institutional failure documented 1 November: Formal deadline to Ombudsman missed 3 November: Ombudsman’s “may or may not” non-response 4 November: Final absolute deadline before public campaign Board response: Silence. But within 9 hours of public campaign and GAC complaint: Compliance responds. This proves: Board oversight is ineffective when internal processes fail ICANN responds to external pressure, not internal accountability The multi-stakeholder model fails when all internal mechanisms fail simultaneously This is a Board-level governance failure requiring immediate action. PART 9: FORMAL DEMANDS WITH 24-HOUR DEADLINES TO OMBUDSMAN ELIZABETH FIELD (Within 24 hours of receipt): DEMAND 1: Open formal Ombuds case immediately investigating: 117-day delay in violation of Compliance Process standards Contradictory statements about ICANN’s authority (RAA §3.12) Material inconsistencies in audit timeline (August vs. October) Failure to provide requested documentary evidence after 117 days DEMAND 2: Request Compliance attach the following to case file: Complete audit findings for malaysia.build ICANN-Registry email communications (Oct-Dec 2023) EPP deletion transaction logs Evidence of any registrant notification attempts DEMAND 3: Provide written explanation of: Why 117-day delay does not constitute procedural failure warranting immediate investigation Why “cannot open case until Compliance concludes” rule doesn’t prevent investigating delay itself Why Ombudsman’s 3-5 day response SLA was violated multiple times in my case Your silence beyond 24 hours will be treated as confirmation that the Ombudsman cannot function when ICANN’s internal processes fail. TO ICANN BOARD (Within 24 hours of receipt): DEMAND 1: Acknowledge receipt of this email in writing DEMAND 2: Initiate independent review of: Why Contractual Compliance required 117 days + public pressure to respond Why multiple formal deadlines were ignored Whether Compliance’s “detailed response” meets ICANN’s transparency standards Why Ombudsman’s procedural rules prevent investigation of delay DEMAND 3: Publish public statement addressing: Whether registrants have due process rights in Specification 5 enforcement Whether good-faith registrants can be held liable for Registry system failures What remedies exist when all internal accountability mechanisms fail Your silence beyond 24 hours will be documented as Board-level governance failure. TO MALAYSIA GAC REPRESENTATIVE & MCMC (Response requested within reasonable time): REQUEST 1: Investigate whether Malaysia’s sovereign name was properly protected: Was the GAC representative consulted in 2014 or 2023? Did the Registry seek Malaysia’s approval before registration or deletion? Does the current framework adequately protect Malaysia’s digital sovereignty? REQUEST 2: Provide guidance on whether: Domain was being used to promote or harm Malaysia’s interests Malaysian registrants should have additional protections GAC should recommend reforms to ICANN’s Specification 5 process REQUEST 3: Consider whether to: File formal complaint with ICANN about Registry’s handling Request Board review of Specification 5 enforcement practices Raise this case at next GAC meeting as policy issue PART 10: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT This email will be published soon at: https://loss.co My public accountability campaign continues through: Domain registrant advocacy organizations Documenting this as case study in ICANN accountability failure Supporting systemic reforms to protect registrants Internet governance stakeholders Submitting public comments in ICANN policy processes Engaging with technical community on due process standards Media coverage Sharing story of how ICANN’s accountability system fails registrants Documenting 117-day delay + ignored deadlines + 9-hour response after public pressure Academic research Providing case materials to researchers studying ICANN governance Supporting empirical analysis of accountability mechanism effectiveness International regulatory attention Engaging with government representatives beyond Malaysia Highlighting sovereignty concerns in country name protections The 22 September deadline was ignored. The 4 November deadline was ignored. The “detailed response” after 117 days is contradictory and evidence-free. ICANN’s accountability system is demonstrably broken. The internet is watching. CONCLUSION This case is no longer just about one domain. It’s about: Whether ICANN’s accountability mechanisms function or merely create the appearance of oversight Whether registrants who act in good faith have meaningful protections Whether “mistake correction” provisions can be abused to delete long-standing domains without due process Whether ICANN responds to internal accountability or only external pressure Whether countries’ sovereign names are protected or weaponized against good-faith users The timeline proves everything: 117 days of internal process ignored Multiple formal deadlines ignored 34 days of Ombudsman involvement produced nothing 9 hours after public campaign: Compliance responds When internal accountability fails this comprehensively, external transparency and reform advocacy are not preferences—they are necessities. Your 24-hour response windows begin upon receipt. For the complete documentary record—including all correspondence, evidence, and timelines referenced below—please visit the public repository at: https://loss.co The repository contains, among other items: 1.    The Complete Email Correspondence from 11 July to 5 November 2025, documenting the entire 117-day delay. 2.    Evidence of 10 Consecutive Renewal Payments and Confirmations, proving lawful registration and good-faith reliance for nearly a decade. 3.    The Registry’s 1 December 2023 Email to Enom, explicitly stating the domain removal was “requested by ICANN.” 4.    Proof of Substantial Commercial Development, demonstrating a 30+ month investment and the significant harm caused. 5.    A Detailed Timeline of all formal deadlines set and subsequently ignored by all parties. 6.    Screenshots of peru.travel and greece.travel remaining active, providing clear evidence of inconsistent and selective enforcement of Specification 5. This public repository serves as the definitive evidence base for this case of systemic failure. Respectfully but firmly, WONG TAI CHIEW Former Registrant – malaysia.build +60 19-828 0131 [email protected] Complete case documentation: https://loss.co Case #: 01448650 Date: 5 November 2025

To: ombuds <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],  [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Bcc: [email protected], Namecheap Domains Support Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Namecheap Risk Management Team <[email protected]>, Namecheap Legal & Abuse Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

SUBJECT: FINAL NOTIFICATION: 24-HOUR ACCOUNTABILITY DEADLINE FAILED – COMPLETE INSTITUTIONAL COLLAPSE CONFIRMED

6 November 2025

This serves as my final notification regarding Case #01448650.

The 24-hour deadline was the last opportunity for any party in this multi-stakeholder system to demonstrate basic accountability. That deadline has now passed.

The result? A coordinated, institutional silence from every responsible party:

·         ICANN Contractual Compliance

·         ICANN Ombudsman

·         ICANN Board of Directors

·         .BUILD Registry

·         Enom

·         Namecheap

YOUR COLLECTIVE FAILURE TO RESPOND CONFIRMS THE COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF ICANN’S ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK.

1. The “Detailed Response” Was Triggered Only By External Pressure and Remains an Evidentiary Vacuum
ICANN Compliance’s email of 5 November 2025—issued only after I filed a formal complaint with Malaysia’s GAC representative and launched a public campaign—was presented as a resolution after 117 days of delay. Yet it contains no audit reports, no transaction logs, no communications with the registry, and no specific evidence for malaysia.build. How can this empty assertion, produced only under external pressure, be considered the “detailed response” promised by the Ombudsman’s office on 3 October 2025?

2. ICANN Compliance’s Position is Logically Impossible

Beyond the contradictions previously documented, your response contains this fundamental inconsistency:

You state:

“There is no indication that a registry operator or a registrar failed to comply with an ICANN policy and agreement.“

Yet you simultaneously assert:

“The Registry Operator… stated that the release had been made in error which it subsequently corrected.”

“malaysia.build was deleted and reserved to correct the mistake by the Registry Operator…”

“…deletion and reservation of the protected name that had been erroneously released.”

A registry error in releasing and maintaining a reserved name for nearly a decade constitutes a clear failure to comply with Specification 5. You cannot claim there was “no failure to comply” while basing your entire case on the need to “correct” a “mistake.” This logical impossibility voids your argument’s foundation.

3. The Accountability Framework is a Facade

The Ombudsman’s office, aware of this 117-day delay and the manifestly inadequate “detailed response,” has failed to act. The Board, copied on every escalation, has provided no oversight. The system is designed to create the appearance of accountability while being structurally incapable of delivering it.

THE SILENCE FROM ALL PARTIES SPEAKS LOUDER THAN ANY RESPONSE COULD. IT CONFIRMS THAT ICANN’S ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS EXIST ONLY ON PAPER, NOT IN PRACTICE.

This concludes all internal engagement. The campaign to expose these systemic failures will continue indefinitely in the public domain. There will be no closure until meaningful accountability and reform are achieved.

 

WONG TAI CHIEW
Former Registrant – malaysia.build
Case #01448650
https://loss.co

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 11:38 PM ombuds <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

Thank you for your detailed correspondence 5 November 2025 regarding ICANN Contractual Compliance case xxxxxx.  I note the issues you have raised regarding response delays, process transparency and accountability.

The Ombuds Office is independent, impartial and confidential.  My role is to help ensure that community members are treated fairly and to ensure that decisions and actions impacting community members are consistent with ICANN policies and procedures.

I note from your below correspondence that you wish to open a case with the Ombuds Office.  In order to progress and open a case, I require the following information from you.  Following receipt of this information, I will assess whether the case is within scope for the Ombuds Office and whether the Ombuds Office can help. I will inform you about the decision and the reasons for the decision.

• Date(s) of the incident/issue of concern; already been provided
• How you believe you have been treated unfairly by Contractual Compliance(s);
• A description of the basis of the complaint including relevant policy/process that may apply;
• A summary of contact between you and the Contractual Compliance on the issue, if applicable, and any previous attempts to resolve the issue;
• How you have been adversely affected;
• What you are looking for to put the matter right;
• How you believe the Ombuds Office can help; and
• Any other information you wish to provide.

A point of clarification on the Ombuds Office timescales (referred to in your email as “SLA”), the below are the timescales that the Office has set:

• 3-5  working days to acknowledge and respond to correspondence
• 25 working days to determine if a matter is within scope and agree scope with complainant
• 60-90 days to complete the evaluation, after the scope has been agreed

I understand your frustration and concerns with the loss of your domain name and the time this process has taken.    The standard is to treat all cases as confidential unless the complainant agrees that the case can be discussed publicly. Please indicate if you wish to waive confidentiality.

Warm wishes,
Liz

from:		DotCoName <[email protected]>
to:		ombuds <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
cc:		[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
bcc:		[email protected], Namecheap Domains Support Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Namecheap Risk Management Team <[email protected]>, Namecheap Legal & Abuse Team <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
date:		Nov 7, 2025, 5:42 PM
subject:		Re: [Ext] Re: Case Number 01448650 – Additional information for Reserved Names complaint re: [ ref:!00D6106tJk.!500Rm0ouQhV:ref ]
mailed-by:		gmail.com

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 5:42 PM DotCoName <[email protected]> wrote:

SUBJECT: RE: CASE #01448650 – YOUR “SLA” IS THE CATCH-22 I’M COMPLAINING ABOUT

Dear Liz,

With exquisite politeness, let me translate your 11:38 PM email into plain English:

“Please grant us another 3–5 + 25 + 60–90 working days (up to six more months) of procedural oxygen while we pretend we’ve never seen the 120-day corpse rotting in the room.”

That, Liz, is not an intake form. That is institutional seppuku disguised as bureaucracy.

Your email is not a response—it is another piece of evidence of ICANN’s systemic accountability failure. You have perfectly demonstrated why I escalated to the Ombuds Office in the first place: institutional process weaponized to avoid substance.

THE CORE ISSUE IS DELAY — YOU JUST PRESCRIBED MORE OF IT

Let me present your “SLA” with brutal clarity:

Your “SLA”	Translation
3–5 days to acknowledge	→ After nearly 120 days since initial complaint
25 days to “agree scope”	→ After I have exhaustively detailed the scope across multiple communications.
60–90 days to evaluate	→ After the domain has been dead for 700+ days

DELAY IS THE COMPLAINT. YOU JUST PRESCRIBED THE DISEASE AS THE CURE.

This is Catch-22 #2, and it is glorious bad faith.

When a patient is bleeding out from procedural delays, the doctor does not schedule a 90-day consultation to determine if bleeding is within scope. Yet here we are.

You Already Know Every Answer — Here’s the Mirror

Since 1 October 2025 (38 days ago), your office has had complete access to:

✓ The full email trail
✓ The 15 unanswered questions
✓ The shifting audit program dates (10 Sept email stated October 2023; 5 Nov email stated August 2023—yet my domain was deleted 5 Dec 2023, over 3 months AFTER the alleged August audit)
✓ The “requested by ICANN” vs “no authority” contradiction (eNom says one thing, ICANN says another—who is lying?)
✓ The Spec 5 estoppel (impossible Catch-22 requiring government authorization that was supposedly not required)
✓ The peru.travel / greece.travel selective enforcement (why do these geographic domains survive while mine was deleted?)
✓ The coordinated silence from all parties (ICANN, eNom, Namecheap, .build Registry)
✓ The 9-hour response blink after I launched the public campaign

All meticulously documented at:
https://loss.co/icann-contractual-compliance-complete-email-trail/
https://loss.co/ombudsman-board-complete-email-trail/
https://loss.co (every contradiction, every timeline, every piece of evidence)

If your memory requires refreshing, I invite you to visit these URLs.

The Questions You Should Answer FIRST

Before asking me to repeat information that is already comprehensively documented in the record, perhaps you could demonstrate good faith by addressing these questions that have gone unanswered:

1. Why did eNom state they received “an order from ICANN” to delete my domain, while ICANN Compliance claims they have “no authority” to order deletions? Which institution is lying?
2. Why does ICANN Compliance provide contradictory audit dates? ICANN Contractual Compliance Team’s 10 September 2025 email stated the audit was conducted in October 2023. Their 5 November 2025 email stated it was August 2023. My domain was deleted on 5 December 2023—over 3 months AFTER the alleged August audit. Which date is accurate? How does a deletion occur 3+ months after an audit supposedly identified the issue?
3. Why does Specification 5 create an impossible Catch-22 where geographic names require government authorization, but “malaysia”—unambiguously a country name—supposedly didn’t require such authorization?
4. How is the “oversight” of “malaysia” as a country name even remotely plausible? Malaysia is a G20 member and a constant fixture in global media. The MH370 disappearance on 8 March 2014 dominated headlines for months / years. I registered malaysia.build on 29 April 2014—precisely as global attention was fixed on the country. Subsequently, the 1MDB scandal (2015 onwards) erupted into a massive international financial scandal. Given this context, the claim that “malaysia” was overlooked as a geographic identifier is not merely implausible; it is an insult to the intelligence of this process. How did every single vetting checkpoint—from the registrar to the registry to ICANN’s own audit—fail to catch the name of a G20 nation at the center of worldwide news?
5. Why has there been coordinated silence from ICANN Compliance, eNom, Namecheap, .build Registry, and your office— with replies that were substantively worthless—contradictory on dates, inconsistent in logic, and devoid of any supporting evidence—finally appearing only after I launched a public accountability campaign?
6. Why has your office missed every single deadline—including your own—to respond to my 1 October escalation?
7. Why have my 15 detailed questions from previous correspondence been completely ignored?
8. How is my case being treated as “new” when your office has had complete documentation since 1 October 2025?
9. Why are peru.travel and greece.travel still registered while malaysia.build was deleted, if geographic enforcement is consistent?
10. Why is the Ombuds Office—chartered to ensure fairness and prevent procedural abuse—now actively participating in the delay tactics I am challenging?

POLITELY BUT FIRMLY: EXPLAIN WHY MY CASE IS “OUT OF SCOPE”

You state you need 25 working days to “determine if a matter is within scope.”

Please explain—in writing, today—how any of the following would fall OUTSIDE the scope of an office chartered to ensure community members are treated fairly and that decisions are consistent with ICANN policies:

• 119-day institutional failure to provide substantive answers
• Contradictory statements from ICANN entities about authority, process, and audit dates
• Deletion of a 9+ year domain without notice, without due process, without EPP transfer codes
• Selective enforcement of geographic name policies
• Multiple policy violations documented in detail
• Coordinated institutional silence broken only by public pressure

If this case is outside your scope, state so now. Explain why. Put it in writing.

Until then, scope is self-evident. The only question is whether you intend to address it.

WHAT YOU’RE REALLY ASKING FOR — AND WHY I WON’T PLAY ALONG

Your email requests information under the guise of “intake procedure.” But this is not a new case requiring intake. This is an escalation of a 119-day failure where your office has had complete documentation for 38 days.

Let me be crystal clear about what you’re actually doing:

1. Date(s) of the incident: You’ve had this since 1 October 2025. It’s in my formal escalation email. It’s at loss.co. Asking again is not intake—it’s stalling.
2. How I believe I have been treated unfairly: If after 38 days of having the complete record, you cannot identify how 119 days of unanswered questions, contradictory statements, and deletion without due process constitutes unfair treatment, you are either incompetent or acting in bad faith.
3. Description of the basis of complaint including relevant policy/process: This information has been submitted to you repeatedly, in an endless cycle of your own making. The answer is no, I will not provide it again. Your 25-day “scope assessment” clock started on October 1st, not whenever you decide you have the “right” version of facts you’ve known for over a month.
4. Summary of contact with Contractual Compliance: The complete email trail has been available at https://loss.co/icann-contractual-compliance-complete-email-trail/. You have access. Use it.
5. How I have been adversely affected: Documented in detail in my 1 October and 5 November correspondence. Loss of 9+ year domain. Extremely serious FINANCIAL DAMAGES. 119 days of institutional runaround. If you haven’t read the case file in 38 days, that’s evidence of system failure, not grounds for me to repeat myself.
6. What I am looking for: I stated this clearly on 1 October and again on 5 November. Substantive answers. Accountability. Restoration or explanation. Reasonable compensation for documented losses. What I am NOT looking for is another 120 days of procedural theatre.
7. How the Ombuds Office can help: By doing your job. By addressing the substantive issues I’ve raised instead of manufacturing procedural obstacles. By not treating a 119-day failure as a “new case” requiring 25 days to assess scope plus 90 days to evaluate.
8. Any other information: YES. I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A PROCEDURAL CHARADE DESIGNED TO DELAY ACCOUNTABILITY.

I AM NOT OPENING A NEW CASE — THE CASE IS ALREADY OPEN

To be absolutely clear, Liz:

My case with the Ombuds Office opened on 1 October 2025 when I filed my formal escalation. That was 38 days ago.

You received complete documentation. You had 3-5 working days to acknowledge it (you missed that deadline). You have had 38 days to review the substantive issues.

I AM NOT NOW “OPENING” A CASE BY FILLING OUT YOUR INTAKE FORM. I AM REFUSING TO RESET THE CLOCK TO ZERO SO YOU CAN ADD ANOTHER 88-120 DAYS.

The information you claim you need has been in your possession for 38 days. If you choose not to read it, that is evidence of the system failure I am documenting—not grounds for me to re-submit it and trigger your extended timelines.

Either:

1. Engage with the substantive case I escalated to you 38 days ago, or
2. State in writing that my case is outside your scope and explain why, or
3. Continue to stall and watch me document every day of it publicly.

Those are your options. “Fill out this form so we can take 120 more days” is not one I will accept.

ON CONFIDENTIALITY — ABSOLUTELY WAIVED!

You ask if I wish to waive confidentiality. Yes. Absolutely. Unequivocally. With enthusiasm.

This case has been public since I launched the accountability campaign. ICANN’s institutional failures deserve public scrutiny. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Every email. Every contradiction. Every delay. All documented. All public. All permanent.

THE BAD FAITH IS SHOWING

Your response confirms exactly what I alleged: INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IS BEING WEAPONIZED TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY.

You are not asking for information you don’t have. YOU ARE MANUFACTURING DELAY TO EXHAUST MY RESOLVE.

Your email itself is clear, solid evidence of the accountability and system failure I am documenting. When the Ombuds Office—the supposed backstop against institutional abuse—responds to a delay complaint by requesting 88-120 additional days, the system has failed completely.

This is not intake. This is institutional theatre. And the audience is watching.

THE CAMPAIGN CONTINUES — LOUDER

Every day you spend “assessing scope” is another day of documented evidence that ICANN’s accountability mechanisms exist to protect ICANN, not the community.

The clock does not reset. The campaign does not pause. The record grows.

Case is open. Confidentiality waived. Evidence public. Questions unanswered.

Do your job, Liz. Or explain in writing why you cannot.

Respectfully but unambiguously,

Wong Tai Chew
Former registrant, malaysia.build
https://loss.co

P.S. — Since you’ve expressed concern about timescales: I filed my initial complaint on 11 July 2025. Today is 7 November 2025. That is 119 days. Your proposed timeline would extend this to 237+ days minimum. For a domain that was deleted without notice after 9+ years. The absurdity speaks for itself.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 11:58 PM ombuds <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

I am contacting you regarding your email to the ICANN Office of Ombuds about a complaint of unfairness against ICANN Contractual Compliance.

If you are interested to , please let me know.

Warm wishes,

liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 *** **** www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

to elizabeth.field, ombudsman, ICANN, fahmi, mdafiq.tulos, ruzamri.ruwandi, scird, corporate, aduanskmm, board-global-contacts, gac-upport, meetingsupport, globalsupport, compliance, steve.crocker, tripti.sinha, maarten.botterman, catherine.adeya, alan.barrett, chris.buckridge, nico.caballero, constance.deleusse, sarah.deutsch, raul.echeberria, greg.dibiase, wes.hardaker, james.galvin, byron.holland, christian.kaufmann, david.lawrence, kurtis.lindqvist, patricio.poblete, leon.sanchez, miriam.sapiro, amitabh.singhal, sajid.rahman, reconsideration, correspondence, icann-board, support, Namecheap, domains, pr, Namecheap, Namecheap, legalandabuse, abuseescalation, ceo, legal, legal, compliance, abuse, support, support, abuse, ombuds, bcc: contact, bcc: biznews, bcc: metro, bcc: letters, bcc: newsdesk, bcc: features, bcc: business, bcc: forum, bcc: tips, bcc: news, bcc: domain, bcc: news, bcc: editor, bcc: news, bcc: editor, bcc: news, bcc: techpolicy.press, bcc: coverage, bcc: editor, bcc: news, bcc: editor, bcc: press, bcc: tips, bcc: news, bcc: tips, bcc: editor, bcc: tech, bcc: asia.news, bcc: mbiz, bcc: singapore.newsroom, bcc: hongkong.newsroom, bcc: tokyo.newsroom, bcc: sydnews, bcc: asia, bcc: singapore, bcc: se, bcc: newseditors, bcc: asia.news, bcc: kuala.lumpur.newsroom, bcc: singapore.newsroom, bcc: bangkok.newsroom, bcc: ap, bcc: tips, bcc: london.bureau, bcc: asia, bcc: sg.bureau, bcc: newsdesk, bcc: singapore.bureau, bcc: bangkok.bureau, bcc: london.bureau, bcc: news, bcc: editor, bcc: tips, bcc: news, bcc: editor, bcc: tips, bcc: news, bcc: news, bcc: digital, bcc: news, bcc: desk, bcc: newsdesk, bcc: news, bcc: stcom, bcc: digital, bcc: news, bcc: news, bcc: asean, bcc: asia, bcc: news, bcc: asia, bcc: asia, bcc: tips, bcc: asia.bloombergradio, bcc: communications, bcc: news, bcc: media, bcc: press, bcc: comms, bcc: info

Dear Liz,

Your email of November 18, sent 26 minutes after my global press escalation, invites me to “explore options.” The premise of this question is flawed. I am not the party at fault; I am the victim of a 161-day institutional failure. The appropriate question is not what my options are, but what remedial options ICANN and the involved parties will now offer to rectify the UNAUTHORIZED DELETION OF MY DOMAIN and THE EXTREMELY SERIOUS FINANCIAL DAMAGES caused by your collective errors.

Before any discussion can proceed, I require written clarification on fundamental contradictions in your office’s handling of this case. These issues go to the heart of my complaint about institutional fairness and impartiality.

1. The Unexplained Contradiction in Your Office’s Stance
   On November 6, you stated that specific intake information was required before you could “assess whether the case is within scope.” On November 18—without receiving any such information—you reversed course and offered to investigate.

This direct contradiction has only two logical explanations:

• The intake form was never truly required, making your November 6 email an act of institutional obstruction.
• The reversal was triggered by external pressure, making your November 18 email an act of institutional damage control.

You must explain in writing why this requirement was reversed.

2. Answers to the 10 Outstanding, Recurring Questions are a Prerequisite
   To date, 10 critical questions—first submitted in earlier communications and formally restated to your office on November 7—remain unanswered. These questions form the foundation of my complaint regarding contradictory policies, selective enforcement, and procedural violations.

I require written responses to these questions before we proceed. They are available in your records and the public archive:
https://loss.co/ombudsman-board-complete-email-trail/#711

3. The Non-Negotiable Scope of Any Engagement
   Any investigation must address the complete 161-day timelineof institutional failure, including:

• The protracted delay and silence from ICANN Compliance.
• The contradictory statements from ICANN entities.
• The Ombudsman office’s own 49-day delay and procedural gatekeeping.

A narrow investigation that ignores your office’s role in the delay would itself be a conclusive act of unfairness.

My Final Conditions for Moving Forward
I am willing to engage only under the following conditions:

• This is not treated as a new case. The case was opened on October 1, 2025.
• The investigation must include your office’s handling of my complaint.
• All findings are made public, as I have waived confidentiality.
• The primary output must be a formal statement from all involved parties (ICANN Compliance, eNom, .BUILD Registry) detailing their proposed remedies for the domain loss and documented financial damages.

I will not schedule an appointment until I receive your written responses to the points above. Your clarity—or lack thereof— will signal whether this process is one of accountability or public containment.

For your awareness, I am currently reviewing the extensive documentation in this case and coordinating with various international bodies and press outlets that have expressed interest in the systemic DNS governance failures highlighted by Case #01448650. The resolution of this matter is being watched closely.

PUBLIC DECLARATION: MY CAMPAIGN CONTINUES UNTIL RESOLUTION

My campaign will not stop, pause, or be placated by procedural theater.

The 161-day institutional failure by ICANN Compliance, the Ombudsman, and their contracted parties is not just a delay; it is an active ongoing injustice against me. The unauthorized deletion of my domain and the ensuing systemic cover-up represent a critical failure of DNS governance that I will not accept.

Therefore, let this be clear to all involved parties:

• I will not be contained. Any attempt to narrow the scope, reset the clock, or divert into an endless process will be met with my increased public scrutiny.
• I will not be silenced. The public record at https://loss.co will continue to grow, as I document every contradiction, every delay, and every act of institutional bad faith in real-time.
• I will not be fatigued. My resolve is strengthened by every unanswered question, every unexplained contradiction, and every day this remains unresolved.
• The cost of delay is escalating. Every day this injustice continues, increases the compensation I am entitled to for the ongoing financial damages, reputational harm, and profound institutional abuse. The final reckoning for this coordinated failure will not come cheap.

This will only end for me with a full, fair, and public resolution that includes:

1. Substantive Answers to all my outstanding questions.
2. Accountability for the 161 days of coordinated institutional silence.
3. Tangible Remediation for my DOMAIN LOSS AND THE SEVERE FINANCIAL DAMAGES I have incurred.

Until that day, my campaign escalates. My spotlight intensifies. The pressure I apply will grow.

The world is watching. I will ensure it sees the truth.

Note on Confidentiality:
On November 7, 2025, I explicitly waived all confidentiality regarding this case. As this dispute involves the unauthorized deletion of a G20 nation’s domain and systemic governance failures, there is no expectation of privacy. All correspondence is part of the public record.

Sincerely,

Wong Tai Chew

Cc: [Full List of Previous Recipients – ICANN Board, Compliance, GAC, MCMC, Namecheap, eNom, .build Registry, PRESS (bcc), etc.]

P.S. Your email of November 18, 2025, has been published as part of the official public record at https://loss.co. All future correspondence will be treated similarly.

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 1:02 AM ombuds <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

I acknowledge receipt of your email and I will respond in due course.

Warm wishes,

Liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN

Mobile: +41 79 *** **** www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 12:49 AM ombuds &lt;[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Wong Tai Chew,

I would like to follow up with some additional information about your options and answers to your questions.  Once again, I am sorry for the ongoing problems with the loss of your domain and the impact that you have described on your business.

I want to clarify that the Ombuds Office has declined to accept your case, the reasons for this are explained below.

The role of the ICANN Ombuds

On the 16 September 2025, I responded to your complaint email (15 September 2025) to explain the role of the ICANN Ombuds to act as a neutral dispute resolution practitioner.

To clarify further, the role of the ICANN Ombuds is set out in the ICANN Bylaws Article V

The principal function of the Ombudsman shall be to provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly. The Ombudsman shall serve as an objective advocate for fairness, and shall seek to evaluate and where possible resolve complaints about unfair or inappropriate treatment by ICANN staff, the Board, or ICANN constituent bodies, clarifying the issues and using conflict resolution tools such as negotiation, facilitation, and “shuttle diplomacy” to achieve these results.

I also clarified that the Ombuds Office cannot make, change or set aside a policy or decision.

The ICANN Ombudsman Framework clarifies this specifically:

The Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. To the extent a complaint is made relating to a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission, the Ombudsman does have the power to investigate these events, and to use ADR techniques to attempt to resolve the complaint.

Scope of the ICANN Ombuds and remediation

In your email on the 15 September 2025 and subsequent emails, including  30 September and 18 October, you have indicated that you wish the Ombuds to review issues related to Contracted Parties, which I advised was out of scope.  Further communications from you refer to complaints about eNom, Namecheap and .build, however none of these parties is in scope for the Ombuds Office.

The scope of the Ombuds, as set out in the Bylaws, is specifically ICANN staff, Board or  ICANN constitutent group.  The scope does not extend to unfair treatment by any other parties.

The remediation you are seeking,  as stated on 15 September, is also outside the scope of the ICANN Ombuds.

1. restoration of malaysia.build to my control, or (b) a clear, documented path to restitution that reflects the significant financial and business losses I have incurred due to this systemic failure.

The only party mentioned in your correspondence that the Ombuds Office can investigate for unfair treatment is ICANN staff, in particular the Contractual Compliance function.  I cannot overturn decisions made by  Contractual Compliance, nor can I determine whether the decisions they have made are correct.  Instead, I can assess whether they have treated you fairly by: (i) following the required processes and policies; and (ii) giving you responses with reasons for those responses.

Ombuds Office declines to accept your case

As you now have a response from Contractual Compliance and the issues you have raised in your correspondence are out of scope for the Ombuds Office, including the desired remediation, the Ombuds Office regrets that it cannot help you resolve your issue and will decline to accept your case.

Other Options

ICANN Accountability Mechanisms

Another option would be for you to review the ICANN accountability mechanisms such as the Request for Reconsideration or the Indepdent Review Process, to see if you think any of them would apply in your situation.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en

Complaint Office

You have mentioned a complaint about the timeframe for Contractual Compliance to respond to your complaint, if you wish to complain about this, you may submit a complaint to the ICANN Complaints Office at  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WJ6CFJ7,   [email protected].

Requiring a final decision to proceed

Finally, I note that you had questions about the requiring a final decision to proceed.  The Ombuds Office requires a final decision to proceed with an evaluation or investigation because the Ombuds Office cannot determine if someone has been unfairly treated until there is an action or a decision to investigate.

If there is an inaction, this too would be subject to an Ombuds review and in your case I understand you were concerned that Contractual Compliance was not going to give you a response, but you have now received a response so this is not an ‘inaction.’  I acknowledge that you felt like you were in a ‘catch 22’ while you were waiting for the decision and requesting the Ombuds Office to open a case.  I also understand that felt the response timeframe to be unjustified.  Please be aware that I am not taking a view about whether the timeframe for response was justified or not.

Further, as explained in my email 3 November 2025,  having the final decision also allows the Ombuds Office to determine whether the issues you want the Office to review and evaluate are within the Ombuds Office scope on the basis of this decision.

I am sorry that the Ombuds Office cannot help you at this time.

Best wishes,

Liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 **** www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 7:47 PM DotCoName <[email protected]> wrote:

Note to all CC’d recipients:
This correspondence details a documented, systemic failure within ICANN’s accountability mechanisms concerning the domain malaysia.build. As stakeholders with a role in this matter (governmental, regulatory, contractual, or oversight), this is provided for your information and necessary action.

The core finding is that ICANN’s Ombudsman—the office of last resort for fairness—has structurally rendered ICANN staff conduct unreviewable, creating a perfect accountability vacuum. This failure directly impacted the enforcement of the reserved names policy your office/entity is involved with.

Subject: Formal Response: The Structural Contradictions in Your “Out of Scope” Determination (Catch-22 #22)

Dear Elizabeth Field, ICANN Ombudsman,

I appreciate the time you have taken to correspond with me. However, after reviewing your 9 December 2025 “out of scope” determination in light of your earlier emails and ICANN’s governing documents, I must formally and respectfully express that the reasoning provided is structurally evasive, procedurally self-contradictory, and ultimately destructive to the very concept of fairness the Ombudsman is mandated to uphold.

For your direct reference, I have published a fully documented analysis, supported entirely by your correspondence and the ICANN Bylaws, here:

https://loss.co/accountability-failure-driving-the-final-nail-icann-ombudsman-out-of-scope-finding-double-confirms-systemic-collapse/

This analysis identifies 22 distinct Catch-22 contradictions arising from your office’s interpretation of scope, jurisdiction, prerequisites, and alternative remedies. These contradictions collectively create a perfect accountability vacuum—one in which ICANN staff procedural failure becomes, by design, unreviewable by any internal mechanism.

Among these, Catch-22 #22—The Illusion of Alternative Remedies—is the most troubling, and I must address it directly.

Catch-22 #22 — The Illusion of Alternative Remedies

In your message, you suggested:

> “Another option would be for you to review the ICANN accountability mechanisms such as the Request for Reconsideration or the Independent Review Process…”

> “You may submit a complaint to the ICANN Complaints Office…”

With respect, this advice is procedurally impossible, because:

1. Request for Reconsideration (RfR)

RfR applies only to:

• ICANN Board actions
• ICANN staff actions violating policy
• Decisions based on false information

My case involves:

• non-action
• 180+ days of delay
• contradictory internal communications
• refusal to answer questions

These do not meet RfR criteria.

2. Independent Review Process (IRP)

The IRP:

• requires legal counsel,
• costs tens of thousands of dollars,
• adjudicates violations of ICANN Articles/Bylaws at an institutional level.

It is not intended for a registrant seeking review of staff delay, non-responsiveness, and procedural failure.

3. ICANN Complaints Office

The Complaints Office explicitly:

• does not review Contractual Compliance matters,
• does not review Ombudsman decisions,
• does not provide remedies,
• routinely redirects complainants back to the Ombudsman or Compliance.

In other words, your recommended avenues are categorically incapable of addressing the substance of my complaint.

This transforms your guidance into a procedural illusion of help, redirecting me to mechanisms whose published scopes exclude ICANN staff delay, non-responsiveness, and contradictory communication.

Politely stated:

The Ombudsman declined jurisdiction and then referred me to mechanisms that also cannot accept jurisdiction — a closed loop with no exit.

This is why the behaviour appears institutionally circular and accountability-defeating, not neutral.

The Core Contradiction in Your “Out of Scope” Reasoning

Your emails repeatedly confirm:

• ICANN staff conduct is within scope
• Delay, non-responsiveness, and failure to follow process are explicitly reviewable under Charter §3.2(a)
• The Ombudsman may examine whether staff provided timely and reasoned responses

Yet the office:

• declined to assess 180+ days of delay,
• declined to address clear contradictions in Compliance’s 5 November response,
• declined to respond to 8 staff-conduct questions directly tied to your mandate,
• held the file for 70 days — itself a breach of your own SLA — before declining.

This is not a matter of disagreement; it is a documented structural contradiction:

The only type of ICANN staff conduct the Ombudsman is empowered to review became the exact category declared “out of scope.”

Such an interpretation is not neutral — it is self-negating.

A Structural Accountability Failure, Not an Individual One

To be clear, I do not claim intentional misconduct.

However, your decision and reasoning together reveal a systemic flaw:

• Review cannot begin before Compliance acts.
• Delay becomes “not delay” once Compliance eventually replies.
• After the reply, the Ombudsman cites “policy/decision” limits.
• The Ombudsman then refers me to mechanisms that cannot review the issue either.

This creates an institutional deadlock where:

• Delay is unreviewable,
• Non-response is unreviewable,
• Contradiction is unreviewable,
• Staff conduct is unreviewable,
• Ombudsman delay is unreviewable,
• And no mechanism accepts responsibility.

This is the exact definition of a systemic Catch-22.

Formal Request for Clarification

Given the gravity of these contradictions, I respectfully request written clarification on:

1. What is the explicit standard for “delay” reviewable under Charter §3.2(a)? If 180+ days does not qualify, what does?
2. On what basis were eight staff-conduct issues dismissed as “out of scope” when they correspond word-for-word to your mandate?
3. What practical remedy exists for a registrant when ICANN staff refuse to issue any decision, thereby blocking Ombudsman review and every mechanism that requires a decision?

These questions are procedural, not personal, and go to the heart of the Ombudsman’s purpose.

I request that you either:

1. Reconsider your “out of scope” determination in light of the explicit mandate to review “delay” and “lack of responsiveness,” or
2. Provide a substantive response to the questions and concerns raised above.

I remain available to provide any further documentation or clarification required.

Conclusion

This email is written with respect, but also with necessary firmness.

Your “out of scope” decision, combined with the reasoning offered, has created:

• a closed-loop system,
• a self-reinforcing accountability vacuum, and
• a procedurally unreviewable chain of internal failures.

In short, the behaviour documented across your correspondence appears institutionally evasive, structurally contradictory, and functionally incompatible with the Ombudsman’s mandate as stated in Article V of the ICANN Bylaws.

I request a substantive response addressing the specific contradictions outlined above.

Given the documented breaches of your office’s own SLA during this process, I will watch the calendar with interest—hopefully, this time, the standards of timeliness will be met.

Respectfully,

Wong Tai Chiew

Sibu, Sarawak

6019-8280131

[email protected]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 7:01 PM ombuds <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Wong Tai Chiew,

Before I respond, it would be helpful for me to understand your goal of any further engagement with the Ombuds Office.

You may look at the reports of the ICANN Complaints Office to see the types of complaints that the Office handles:

https://www.icann.org/complaints-report

Thank you in advance and best wishes,

Liz

Elizabeth Field (she/her)

ICANN Ombuds

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: +41 79 611 **** www.icann.org

NB: I am Geneva-based. You can make an appointment 7:00-21:00 CET and my calendar is up to date.  I am available outside of these hours with advance notice.

ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: and Community Anti-Harassment Policy

As ICANN Ombuds, I am independent and all matters brought to me as Ombuds will be treated as confidential.

to: ombuds <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[email protected]

cc: [email protected],
[email protected],
ICANN Contractual Compliance <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
Chairman Office <[email protected]>,
“Dr. Ahmad Nasruddin ‘Atiqullah Fakrullah” <[email protected]>,
Mohamad Afiq Ammar Tulos <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]

date: Dec 15, 2025, 8:54 PM

Subject: Re: Clarification Request – Your Referral to ICANN Complaints Office Repeats the Exact Catch-22 I Previously Documented

Dear Elizabeth Field, ICANN Ombudsman,

You asked me to clarify my goal of further engagement with the Ombuds Office. I can answer that clearly:

My goal is for the ICANN Ombudsman to address the documented contradictions in your “out of scope” determination, which I detailed comprehensively in my 12 December 2025 correspondence.

However, your latest message—referring me to the ICANN Complaints Office—repeats the exact procedural impossibility I have already documented as Catch-22 #22: The Illusion of Alternative Remedies.

Let me be direct about why this response is structurally problematic.

The ICANN Complaints Office Cannot Help – I Already Proved This

In my previous correspondence, I provided documented evidence that the ICANN Complaints Office explicitly excludes the substance of my complaint. Your referral ignores this evidence entirely.

Timeline Clarification (Accuracy Matters)

• First complaint to Namecheap: June 11, 2025
• First complaint to ICANN Contractual Compliance: July 11, 2025
• “To date”: December 15, 2025

Total delay at ICANN Compliance: 157 days

From the Complaints Office’s own published scope:

✗ “Does not review Contractual Compliance matters” → My case originated as Compliance matter #01448650
✗ “Does not review Ombudsman decisions” → You are the Ombudsman
✗ “Does not provide remedies” → I seek review of 157+ days of staff delay and contradictions
✗ Routinely redirects complainants back to Ombudsman or Compliance → Creating the exact loop I documented

Your office declined jurisdiction. The Complaints Office cannot accept jurisdiction. This is not a gap – it is a designed vacuum.

I visited the link you provided: https://www.icann.org/complaints-report

The reports confirm exactly what I documented:

The Complaints Office handles issues like:

• Dispute resolution policy concerns
• Registration data accuracy
• General ICANN policy questions
• Non-Compliance operational matters

What it does NOT handle:

• ICANN staff delay (157+ days)
• ICANN staff contradictions
• ICANN staff non-responsiveness
• Ombudsman procedural failures

You already knew this when you referred me there.

What This Referral Actually Reveals

Your message asks me to clarify my goal, then refers me to an office that cannot address my documented concerns.

This creates three possibilities:

1. You are unaware of the Complaints Office’s actual scope
   Unlikely, given your role and experience.
2. You believe referring me elsewhere ends your responsibility
   Possible, but contradicts the Ombudsman mandate to ensure fairness, not simply redirect complaints.
3. You are engaging in procedural deflection
   Most likely. By asking “what is your goal?” while simultaneously offering a mechanism you know cannot help, you create the appearance of engagement while avoiding substantive response.

With respect, none of these interpretations supports confidence in ICANN’s accountability framework.

My Goal, Stated Plainly

Since you asked, here is my goal:

I want the ICANN Ombudsman to address the documented contradictions in your “out of scope” determination.

Specifically:

1. The Delay Contradiction

Your Charter §3.2(a): Ombudsman reviews whether ICANN staff provided “timely” and “reasoned” responses.

The Facts: 157+ days of delay from first Compliance complaint (11 July 2025) to present.

Your Decision: “Out of scope”

The Contradiction: If 157 days doesn’t meet the threshold for “delay,” what does? 200 days? 300 days? Never?

I want you to define the standard you applied to determine that 157 days is not a reviewable delay.

2. The Staff Conduct Contradiction

Your Charter §3.2(a): Ombudsman may review ICANN staff conduct for fairness and responsiveness.

My Complaint: Eight specific questions about staff conduct – contradictory statements, refusal to answer direct questions, premature case closure.

Your Decision: “Out of scope” (declared policy/decision review, not staff conduct)

The Contradiction: The questions were explicitly about HOW staff communicated, not WHAT they decided. This is a textbook staff conduct review.

I want you to explain how questions about staff communication quality fall outside “staff conduct” review.

3. The Alternative Remedies Contradiction

Your Guidance: “Review the ICANN accountability mechanisms such as Request for Reconsideration or Independent Review Process… submit a complaint to the ICANN Complaints Office.”

The Reality:

• RfR: Requires a Board/staff decision. I have 157 days of delay, not a decision.
• IRP: Costs tens of thousands, reviews Bylaws violations, not operational delays.
• Complaints Office: Explicitly excludes Compliance matters and Ombudsman decisions.

The Contradiction: You referred me to mechanisms whose published scopes exclude my complaint type.

I want you to identify ONE mechanism that can actually review ICANN staff delay and non-responsiveness if the Ombudsman declines.

4. The SLA Contradiction

Your Published Standard: 3-5 day acknowledgment of complaints.

Your Performance: 70 days from initial contact (1 Oct 2025) to “out of scope” determination (9 Dec 2025).

The Irony: The office reviewing staff delay broke its own timeliness commitment by 1,300%+ while declining to review someone else’s delay.

(65 days over ÷ 5 day SLA = 1,300% over)

I want you to acknowledge this contradiction and explain how the Ombudsman’s own delay affects the credibility of declining to review staff delay.

What “Further Engagement” Means

You asked what my goal is for further engagement. Here’s what it is not:

•  Endless correspondence
•  Personal attacks
•  Unreasonable demands
•  Refusal to accept legitimate scope limitations

Here’s what it IS:

•  Direct answers to direct questions about documented contradictions
• Clarification of the standards you applied to reach “out of scope”
• Acknowledgment of the procedural vacuum your decision creates
• Either reconsideration of the determination OR substantive explanation of why 157-day delays and documented contradictions are unreviewable

That’s it. That’s my goal!

Not complicated. Not unreasonable. Just accountability for documented procedural failures.

The Broader Accountability Question

Your latest message crystallizes the systemic problem I’ve been documenting:

When the office of last resort for fairness refers complainants to offices that cannot help, what recourse exists?

This is not theoretical. This is the documented reality:

• ICANN Compliance: 157+ days of delay, then contradictions
• ICANN Ombudsman: 70 days to decline, then refer to mechanisms that can’t help
• ICANN Complaints Office: Explicitly excludes Compliance and Ombudsman matters
• Request for Reconsideration: Requires a decision (I have delay, not decision)
• Independent Review Process: $50,000+ process for Bylaws violations, not operational delays
• ICANN Board: 49+ days of complete silence

Every door is closed. Every mechanism declines. Every office points elsewhere.

This is not a gap. This is a designed accountability vacuum.

And when I document this vacuum publicly, you respond by… referring me to the Complaints Office again.

With respect, this is not accountability. This is PROCEDURAL BAD FAITH.

The Question You Should Be Asking

Instead of asking me “what is your goal of further engagement,” perhaps the more relevant question is:

“What is the Ombudsman’s goal when declining to review documented delay, then referring complainants to mechanisms that cannot help?”

Because from where I sit, after 157 days of documented failures across every ICANN accountability office, the answer appears to be:

To exhaust the complainant until they give up.

If that’s not the goal, then I invite you to demonstrate otherwise by addressing the four specific contradictions I’ve outlined above.

Final Request

I am asking you to respond substantively to:

1. The delay standard: What threshold defines reviewable “delay” if 157 days doesn’t qualify?
2. The staff conduct scope: How are questions about staff communication quality “out of scope” for staff conduct review?
3. The alternative remedies: Name ONE mechanism that can actually review staff delay if the Ombudsman declines.
4. The SLA breach: How does the Ombudsman’s 70-day delay affect the credibility of declining to review others’ delays?

These are procedural questions. They require procedural answers. Not referrals to offices that cannot help.

If you believe these questions are unreasonable or outside appropriate engagement with the Ombuds Office, please state that directly.

But please do not send me another link to an office whose published scope explicitly excludes what I’m complaining about.

That’s not helping. That’s deflection.

Structural Conclusion: The Inevitable Procedural Deadlock

Your message asks what my goal is, then immediately offers a solution you know cannot work.

This is the definition of PROCEDURAL BAD FAITH – not because of malice, but because of systematic structural evasion.

The fact that you cannot see (or will not acknowledge) the Catch-22s you are perpetuating IS the accountability failure.

I have documented 22 such contradictions. Your latest message added another one.

I await your substantive response to the four specific questions above.

Given your office broke its own 3-5 day SLA by taking 70 days last time, I will monitor whether this response adheres to the standards you are meant to enforce.

Respectfully but firmly,

Wong Tai Chiew
Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia
+6019-8280131
[email protected]

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 11:28 PM DotCoName <[email protected]> wrote:

ANNOUNCEMENT FOR NAMECHEAP, ENOM, .BUILD REGISTRY, ICANN COMPLIANCE, OMBUDSMAN AND BOARD

Escalation Plan: Taking My malaysia.build Case to US Federal Authorities, Better Business Bureau, and International Commerce Agencies, etc.

What I Am Filing

I will be filing formal complaints with the following US government and business oversight agencies:

1. Better Business Bureau (BBB) Complaints

Against:

• ICANN Contractual Compliance team
• ICANN Ombudsman Office specifically
• ICANN Board
• Namecheap, Inc.
• eNom/Identity Digital
• .BUILD Registry/Identity Digital

Grounds:

• Service delivery failures
• Breach of published service commitments (Ombudsman 3-5 day SLA → 70 days actual)
• Contradictory information
• Premature case closure without resolution
• Complete communication abandonment
• Coordinated silence

Why this matters: BBB complaints are public, permanent, and searchable. Each entity has 14 days to respond or face “unanswered complaint” status, which damages their rating and becomes part of their permanent public record.

• Main filing URL: https://www.bbb.org/file-a-complaint
• How: Search for the business (ICANN in Los Angeles, CA; ICANN Ombudsman; Namecheap, Inc.; eNom/Identity Digital; .BUILD Registry/Identity Digital), then file. Complaints are public and affect ratings.

2. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – Consumer Protection Complaint

Grounds:

• Deceptive trade practices (services advertised but not delivered)
• Unfair commercial practices affecting international consumer
• Pattern risk to other international customers

Why this matters: Creates official US federal government record. FOIA-able by journalists and researchers. Enters FTC pattern complaint database. If similar complaints emerge, trigger investigation protocols.

• Main filing URL: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/
• Direct for consumer issues/unfair practices.

3. US Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration

Grounds:

• US-based entities’ service failures affecting international commerce trust
• Malaysian citizen with Malaysian government (MCMC/GAC) documentation
• Bilateral trade relationship implications
• US digital economy reputation in international markets

Why this matters: The Commerce Department oversees international trade relations and has institutional interest in ICANN governance. Creates diplomatic-level awareness.

• Contact form: https://www.trade.gov/contact-us
• General site: https://www.trade.gov/

4. US Department of State – Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

Grounds:

• International business dispute affecting bilateral relations
• Malaysian government official (MCMC) involvement
• US digital governance credibility with international stakeholders

Why this matters: Elevates to diplomatic awareness level. Malaysia is strategic US partner. State Department handles issues affecting international relations.

• Contact form: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-economic-and-business-affairs/direct-line-contact-us-form
• For economic/business disputes with international implications.

5. White House – Office of Public Engagement

Grounds:

• International commerce and internet governance concerns
• US institutional accountability affecting global stakeholder trust
• Broader implications for US digital economy reputation

Why this matters: Symbolic completion of escalation chain. Creates records at the highest executive level. Discoverable if issue becomes Congressional interest.

• Contact form: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
• Or help with federal agencies: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/help/

6. California Attorney General – Consumer Protection Division

Grounds:

• ICANN headquartered in California
• Consumer protection violations under California law
• International consumer affected by California-based entities

Why this matters: State-level jurisdiction over California businesses. AG has consumer protection enforcement authority.

• Main filing URL: https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company
• Direct form for complaints against California-based entities.

7. Arizona Attorney General – Consumer Protection Division

Grounds:

• GoDaddy (parent company of Identity Digital, which operates eNom and the .BUILD registry) is headquartered in Arizona.
• Unfair and deceptive practices by Arizona-based entities: complete communication blackout (eNom), absolute silence (.BUILD registry), premature case closure without resolution, and failure to provide any meaningful service or remedy.
• These actions have caused substantial harm to an international consumer with no recourse.

Why this matters: Arizona AG has strong consumer protection enforcement powers over local companies. Complaints are public record and can trigger investigation, especially when involving international customers and patterns of non-responsiveness.

Filing URL: https://www.azag.gov/complaints/consumer

8. Washington State Attorney General – Consumer Protection Division

Grounds:

• eNom/Identity Digital has significant operations tied to Washington state (historical registry connections).
• Same pattern of total communication blackout and failure to address consumer harm.

Why this matters: Dual-state pressure (CA + AZ + WA) on the same corporate group increases legal review urgency.

Filing URL: https://www.atg.wa.gov/file-complaint

9. U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) – Office of the National Ombudsman

Grounds:

• As a small business owner (your real-estate platform on malaysia.build), harmed by unfair practices of larger US entities and a US-based governance body.
• Federal agency unfairness affecting small business competitiveness.

Why this matters: Specifically designed for small businesses complaining about federal agency (ICANN) unfairness. Creates federal-level records.

Filing URL: https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/organization/contact-sba

10. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)(if you frame domain as business asset)

Grounds:

• Loss of a valuable business asset due to unfair/deceptive practices by financial-adjacent entities (domain registrars handle payments/transactions).
• Optional stretch, but CFPB accepts broader consumer financial harm complaints.

Why this matters: Another federal record; CFPB complaints are highly visible and shared across agencies.

Filing URL: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/

11. econsumer.gov– International Cross-Border Complaint Platform (FTC-Led Consortium)

Grounds:

• Cross-border e-commerce complaint against US-based registrars (Namecheap, eNom), registry (.BUILD), and governance body (ICANN Compliance, Ombudsman, Board) for unfair/deceptive practices: delay, non-responsiveness, contradictions, premature closure, and procedural evasion causing loss of valuable digital asset.
• As an international (Malaysian) consumer transacting with US entities, this pattern harms global trust in cross-border digital services.

Why this matters: econsumer.gov is an FTC-led international network (over 65 countries, including Malaysia’s consumer agencies). Complaints are shared with enforcement partners worldwide, entered into databases for pattern detection, and can trigger coordinated investigations. Highly visible for cross-border deception claims — perfect for exposing systemic US-entity failures to international audiences.

Filing URL: https://www.econsumer.gov/

12. Any additional US-based entities with demonstrable jurisdictional or oversight relevance identified during the filing process, in order to expose the extremely poor service I received from Namecheap, eNom, the .BUILD registry, ICANN Contractual Compliance, the ICANN Ombudsman, and the ICANN Board.

The Documentation Being Submitted

Each complaint will include:

1. Complete timeline (June 11, 2025 → Present: 188+ days total; including 158+ days attributable to ICANN Contractual Compliance delay and 70 days attributable to the ICANN Ombudsman before declining jurisdiction).
2. Timestamped correspondence from all parties
3. Malaysian government documentation (MCMC letter, December 5, 2025)
4. Published policy violations (Ombudsman SLA breach, Charter violations)
5. Catch-22 documentation (all 23 contradictions mapped)
6. Evidence of delay, contradiction, and objectively documented procedural bad faith
7. Reference to public documentation at loss.co 

Every claim will be backed by verifiable evidence.

Why I Am Announcing This First

Transparency and Documentation:

This is procedural notification.

I am announcing because:

1. Accountability requires visibility – Private escalation allows private dismissal
2. Pattern prevention – Others should know these pathways exist
3. Good faith demonstration – I am giving notice before proceeding
4. Documentation – This announcement becomes part of the official record

The Timeline

Today: Public announcement

Days 1-3 (estimated): Preparation of all complaint documentation

*Preparation is not necessarily limited to 3 days — it will be completed as efficiently as possible. As soon as the documentation is fully ready, the complaint filings will be launched immediately.

Days 4-7 (estimated): Filing with all agencies listed above

Day 8 onward:

• All responses (or non-responses) documented publicly
• Updates posted https://www.namepros.com/ and at loss.co

What I Am NOT Doing

Demanding specific outcomes
Engaging in harassment
Filing frivolous complaints
Misrepresenting facts

What I AM doing:

Using legitimate oversight mechanisms
Documenting systemic accountability failures
Creating official government records
Exercising rights as international consumer
Establishing precedent for others facing similar issues
Forcing public accountability where internal mechanisms failed

A Message to the Parties Involved

This is your notice.

You have had:

• 188+ days to resolve this through internal processes
• Multiple opportunities to engage substantively
• Government-level escalation (MCMC letter, December 5)
• Documented evidence of procedural failures
• Public documentation of all contradictions

The internal accountability mechanisms have comprehensively failed.

I am now using external accountability mechanisms as designed.

If any party wishes to address the documented contradictions before these filings proceed, please provide a substantive response to:

(a) the four core questions I posed to the Ombudsman:

1. What threshold defines reviewable “delay” if 158 days does not qualify?
2. How are staff communication quality and responsiveness issues deemed “out of scope” for staff conduct review?
3. Name one mechanism that can review staff delay if the Ombudsman declines jurisdiction.
4. How does the Ombudsman’s own 70-day SLA breach affect credibility when declining to review delays by others?

(b) the ten questions set out in my email dated 7 December 2025

See: https://loss.co/ombudsman-board-complete-email-trail/#10

(c) a clear explanation addressing all documented procedural Catch-22s, including how a complainant is expected to obtain review when every available mechanism either:

• Requires a decision that will not be issued
• Declines jurisdiction over delay
• Redirects the complainant to another mechanism that also cannot act

Full Catch-22 documentation:
https://loss.co/ombudsman-board-complete-email-trail/#c22

This includes Catch-22 #23 — “Endless Redirection Loop”, in which the complainant is repeatedly referred to mechanisms that explicitly lack authority to help, creating the appearance of procedural options while ensuring that no substantive review can ever occur.

As soon as the documentation is fully ready, I proceed as announced.

Final Statement

This is about principle, not profit.
This is about accountability, not animosity.
This is about systemic reform, not personal vindication.

I have documented every step. I have given every opportunity for internal resolution. I have maintained professional conduct throughout.

When accountability mechanisms fail, escalation to oversight authorities is not just appropriate—it is necessary.

The filings will proceed as announced unless substantive engagement occurs.

Full documentation: https://loss.co
Timeline updates: Will be posted at namepros.com and loss.co as events develop

Thank you for your attention and engagement.

Wong Tai Chiew
Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia
December 16, 2025

P.S. to all parties involved:

Absent substantive engagement, filings will proceed in the ordinary course once documentation is finalized. 

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.