rsaeon
Guide
Hopefully. A lot of things don't make sense in India when the government is involved.
Review Consumer Harassment, the Mitsu.in way
- Thread starter rootyme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harassment
Hopefully. A lot of things don't make sense in India when the government is involved.
There is too much ambiguity regarding the domain registration regulations among some members here. But as a literate man who was bullied for 4 months straight, I refuse to accept 'assumed' regulations so I will stand my ground and take this to ICANN unless it's resolved in India. If ambiguity was accepted as the standard until now, brace up for absolute clarity. Mitsu is now asking me to take down the thread to regain access to my domain. To "mitsu.in", this thread is going nowhere. You can't demand the thread to be taken down in order to return my domain. If you think this thread is your ransom, I ain't paying it. You just can't walk away after what you've done. By the way, Mitsu has 'BLOCKED' my email-ID and put it in 'SPAM' as they mentioned in their last mail to me.
I just went through ICANN's Domain Registrant Rights: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/responsibilities-2014-03-14-en
Yes, it mentions that the registrant needs to provide accurate info but it also acknowledges the fact that humans can make mistakes and that first rule is followed by this:
- If a Registered Name Holder intentionally provides inaccurate or unreliable information, intentionally fails to promptly update the information, or fails to respond over fifteen (15) days to Registrar inquiries about the accuracy of the contact details, the Registered Name Holder will be in material breach of the agreement and the registration may be cancelled.
More ICANN rules: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en#3.7.7.1
3.7.7.2 A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen (15) calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.
Notice 'INTENTIONAL' and 'WILFUL'. I wouldn't have sent Mitsu.in my handwritten instruction manual if I had 'intentions' to provide 'inaccurate info'. A right is a right and there's no second question about that. I own my domain and I will get my domain.
If NIXI doesn't launch a thorough inquiry into the entire scandal, I'll go to ICANN to report everything incl the call recordings. Mitsu, please cook some 'POWER' to show to ICANN. The entire bullying scandal is going to be investigated and there's no second question about that.
I just went through ICANN's Domain Registrant Rights: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/responsibilities-2014-03-14-en
Yes, it mentions that the registrant needs to provide accurate info but it also acknowledges the fact that humans can make mistakes and that first rule is followed by this:
- If a Registered Name Holder intentionally provides inaccurate or unreliable information, intentionally fails to promptly update the information, or fails to respond over fifteen (15) days to Registrar inquiries about the accuracy of the contact details, the Registered Name Holder will be in material breach of the agreement and the registration may be cancelled.
More ICANN rules: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en#3.7.7.1
3.7.7.2 A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen (15) calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.
Notice 'INTENTIONAL' and 'WILFUL'. I wouldn't have sent Mitsu.in my handwritten instruction manual if I had 'intentions' to provide 'inaccurate info'. A right is a right and there's no second question about that. I own my domain and I will get my domain.
If NIXI doesn't launch a thorough inquiry into the entire scandal, I'll go to ICANN to report everything incl the call recordings. Mitsu, please cook some 'POWER' to show to ICANN. The entire bullying scandal is going to be investigated and there's no second question about that.
Last edited:
dvader
Forerunner
As I said earlier your resilience is inspiring. Moreover, I would suggest to go to ICANN no matter what, (at least make a preliminary complaint anyway).
Input: Ok Google Mitsu, define 'wilful', 'intentional', 'gross' negligence and provision of false info:
Outputs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Report to NIXI in Domain Suspension while unquoting all these mails:
Saaarrrr... Customer not ready to cooperate with KYC and is arguing instead. Domain suspended - Action Required.
And thus, "Internal Communication" is 'confidential'. Didn't go through Mitsu's eScAlAtIoN pRoCeSs. He is surely a pAiD pRoPaGaNdIsT.
Outputs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Report to NIXI in Domain Suspension while unquoting all these mails:
Saaarrrr... Customer not ready to cooperate with KYC and is arguing instead. Domain suspended - Action Required.
And thus, "Internal Communication" is 'confidential'. Didn't go through Mitsu's eScAlAtIoN pRoCeSs. He is surely a pAiD pRoPaGaNdIsT.
Last edited:
Mitsu.in is still trying to force me into taking down this thread. Dear Mitsu, if you still haven't got your clues, let me make it absolutely clear. The more you push me, the harder I'll resist. Mitsu has been sending me legal threats from the very beginning so it's time to learn a little law. Remember that if you make me visit the court, I'll read everything from this very post to the judges.
1. NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) or the agreement of confidentiality
There is an exception to NDA. When the 'secret communication' is already public information, it can't be classified as 'confidential'.
i) Screenshots of all the mails that I have written to you are my personal property, not Mitsu's.
ii) Mitsu's logo, E-mail IDs, address are all public knowledge.
iii) The white space, black colour on the fonts, all are the property of the pixels on your screen. All 26 English alphabets are public knowledge. So are singled out words and the sentences formed with them. What can be considered confidential is the message they encompass.
iv) In total, three screenshots posted on this thread are actually from Mitsu. Let's understand the contents of those three mails.
Screenshot 1 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/mail-2-png.177334/
Contents - "Account suspended for incomplete info. Submit KYC or lose domain." --- This is public info. This rule is from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
i) https://www.registry.in/system/files/IN_Registrar_Accreditation_Agreement_1.pdf
ii) https://www.registry.in/system/files/Terms_and_Conditions_for_Registrants.pdf
Screenshot 2 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/image_2023-09-04_18-22-48-png.177336/
Contents - Some poetry by the Mitsu team. Those beautiful red lines are public knowledge on Mitsu's site. Keeping that beauty aside, what Mitsu writes is this - Registar can suspend account upon suspicion and Registrant needs to submit KYC. That's again public info. Those rules are from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
Screenshot 3 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/image_2023-09-04_18-37-51-png.177338/
Contents - Registrar, i.e. Mitsu has un-suspended the Registrant's i.e my own Mitsu account upon receiving my Aadhaar. I am 'ordered' to update my info in 48 hours or be charged/lose my domain. That's again public info. Those beautiful red lines on Mitsu's site already mention the lovely 500 rupees. As far as the deadline is considered, that rule is from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
2. Defamation (IPC Section 499)
Exceptions:
- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published – It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’ interests – It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
I've never been to a court. But if the hon'ble judges allow me to, I'll showcase the screenshots of the Mitsu mails immediately and play the poetic call recordings right there. I'll let the judges decide if saying absolute truth about Mitsu is defamation from any angle. I created this thread cuz I was insulted and harassed and not for any other purpose.
Thanks.
Adding: I had given Mitsu ample chances for an amicable resolution which they conveniently ignored. I had clearly told them on my Sept 11 mail that I had not created this thread with intentions to 'defame' or 'eXtOrT' from them since they had written that in their domain suspension mail. Maybe they forgot how to read Hindi. This thread would not be here had they listened to me.
1. NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) or the agreement of confidentiality
There is an exception to NDA. When the 'secret communication' is already public information, it can't be classified as 'confidential'.
i) Screenshots of all the mails that I have written to you are my personal property, not Mitsu's.
ii) Mitsu's logo, E-mail IDs, address are all public knowledge.
iii) The white space, black colour on the fonts, all are the property of the pixels on your screen. All 26 English alphabets are public knowledge. So are singled out words and the sentences formed with them. What can be considered confidential is the message they encompass.
iv) In total, three screenshots posted on this thread are actually from Mitsu. Let's understand the contents of those three mails.
Screenshot 1 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/mail-2-png.177334/
Contents - "Account suspended for incomplete info. Submit KYC or lose domain." --- This is public info. This rule is from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
i) https://www.registry.in/system/files/IN_Registrar_Accreditation_Agreement_1.pdf
ii) https://www.registry.in/system/files/Terms_and_Conditions_for_Registrants.pdf
Screenshot 2 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/image_2023-09-04_18-22-48-png.177336/
Contents - Some poetry by the Mitsu team. Those beautiful red lines are public knowledge on Mitsu's site. Keeping that beauty aside, what Mitsu writes is this - Registar can suspend account upon suspicion and Registrant needs to submit KYC. That's again public info. Those rules are from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
Screenshot 3 - https://techenclave.com/attachments/image_2023-09-04_18-37-51-png.177338/
Contents - Registrar, i.e. Mitsu has un-suspended the Registrant's i.e my own Mitsu account upon receiving my Aadhaar. I am 'ordered' to update my info in 48 hours or be charged/lose my domain. That's again public info. Those beautiful red lines on Mitsu's site already mention the lovely 500 rupees. As far as the deadline is considered, that rule is from the .IN Registry RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) and T&C for the Registrants.
2. Defamation (IPC Section 499)
Exceptions:
- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published – It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’ interests – It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
I've never been to a court. But if the hon'ble judges allow me to, I'll showcase the screenshots of the Mitsu mails immediately and play the poetic call recordings right there. I'll let the judges decide if saying absolute truth about Mitsu is defamation from any angle. I created this thread cuz I was insulted and harassed and not for any other purpose.
Thanks.
Adding: I had given Mitsu ample chances for an amicable resolution which they conveniently ignored. I had clearly told them on my Sept 11 mail that I had not created this thread with intentions to 'defame' or 'eXtOrT' from them since they had written that in their domain suspension mail. Maybe they forgot how to read Hindi. This thread would not be here had they listened to me.
Last edited:
@GOI-Official Hello Mr. S _ _ _ _ _ v G _ _ _ l, oh my bad, Mr. RajG, sorry.. "GOI-Official",
Enough of these Desi threats. Enough jail threats to Desi forum admins. Time to go Firangi!
www.namepros.com
Time to create a new fake ID, sir!
**Pro tips** The username should be "USA-GOV-Offical". And ofc, you should fittingly send jail threats to NamePros admins as well. Also, don't forget to teach them some Hebrew while you are at it. All the best!
Enough of these Desi threats. Enough jail threats to Desi forum admins. Time to go Firangi!
My Nightmarish Experience with Mitsu Inc - The Great Indian Domain Heist
Before I begin the post, let me communicate this directly to the mods that I am being actively stalked by this company for months. You are going to be contacted by mitsu.in to take down this review. But Mitsu have no grounds to do that since: 1) This is not a defamatory post (Speaking absolute...
**Pro tips** The username should be "USA-GOV-Offical". And ofc, you should fittingly send jail threats to NamePros admins as well. Also, don't forget to teach them some Hebrew while you are at it. All the best!
Last edited:
@GOI-Official You had screamed on that Sep 6, 2023 call that nobody can post screenshots of 'internal communication' online: You had mentioned GoDaddy on your call threat, so here you go:
www.namepros.com
Google any company you want. When pathetic stuff like this happens, consumers post that online with screenshots. This is NOT Nazi Germany. It's the democracy of India. Other companies know 'professionalism' and they strive to resolve consumer issues instead of deceiving the consumers for scams and sending them life threats.
Mitsu.in is also unique in the sense that it bullies the consumers to 'apologise' to them repeatedly. A company asking the consumer to apologise. Not once, every single time and bullying him to take down the public review! No other company does this. Look how Hostinger reacts below. Companies apologise the consumer for a every small inconvenience. That's called professionalism.
Some resources for Mitsu.in to learn professionalism:
1. https://www.linkedin.com/advice/1/how-do-you-develop-maintain-positive-professional-1e
2. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-motivates-your-customers-buy-stay-loyal-daria-leshchenko
Quoting from the second link:
alert - Why You Can't Trust GoDaddy Brokers
It is important to understand that GoDaddy brokers are not working for you. I'm currently defending a UDRP which, although it will be an easy win for the domain registrant, would have been completely unnecessary if GoDaddy was honest with its own customer. In the course of fielding an inquiry...
Google any company you want. When pathetic stuff like this happens, consumers post that online with screenshots. This is NOT Nazi Germany. It's the democracy of India. Other companies know 'professionalism' and they strive to resolve consumer issues instead of deceiving the consumers for scams and sending them life threats.
Mitsu.in is also unique in the sense that it bullies the consumers to 'apologise' to them repeatedly. A company asking the consumer to apologise. Not once, every single time and bullying him to take down the public review! No other company does this. Look how Hostinger reacts below. Companies apologise the consumer for a every small inconvenience. That's called professionalism.
Some resources for Mitsu.in to learn professionalism:
1. https://www.linkedin.com/advice/1/how-do-you-develop-maintain-positive-professional-1e
2. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-motivates-your-customers-buy-stay-loyal-daria-leshchenko
Quoting from the second link:
DewlanceWebHosting
Beginner
I came here from inforum dot in and discovered that I already have an account here. This thread reminds me of when I was younger and did similar things as the OP. I believe it's a good idea to communicate and retrieve your domain.
Mitsu, please consider returning his domain if there are no legal issues for you.
Mitsu, please consider returning his domain if there are no legal issues for you.
Received a call from UIDAI today. And, immediately after I mentioned what exactly Mitsu had replied on their 'We'll charge you' reply, they told me 'YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE PROVIDED MITSU YOUR AADHAAR!" UIDAI told me this after I told them that I was only missing my doorstep address during sign up. I disclosed all the events accurately without hiding anything.
Ok, so I didn't even have to utter a word on Mitsu's personal threats to 'Wipe me from India' for UIDAI to say so. Now, UIDAI tells me that they can't do anything here except recommending me to lock my biometrics since I had submitted my Aadhaar with my consent. Note that, UIDAI itself just instructed me to lock my Aadhaar and take this to the consumer forum.
Now, coming to my consent of sharing my Aadhaar. I consented solely because I had found Mitsu under .IN Registry's accredited Registrars list. https://www.registry.in/accredited-registrars
The onus is on .IN Registry now to answer why private entities are permitted to ask for KYC. .IN Registry is directly responsible for my consent and they must do the needful. Private entities can't be allowed to access KYC at any cost. What they can do is apparent from my case.
.IN Registy now mandates KYC for all .IN Domains. https://www.registry.in/kyc-mandatory
If KYC is compulsory, .IN Registry itself must create a portal for KYC and employ staff to do the verification. NO THIRD PARTY except .IN Registry should have access to KYC.
Over to .IN Registry now. They are responsible for my consent. Even if Mitsu has not misused my ID proof yet, there is no guarantee they wouldn't do that in the future. IDK/IDC what Mitsu says. They will have to answer why I was sent so many threats.
Ok, so I didn't even have to utter a word on Mitsu's personal threats to 'Wipe me from India' for UIDAI to say so. Now, UIDAI tells me that they can't do anything here except recommending me to lock my biometrics since I had submitted my Aadhaar with my consent. Note that, UIDAI itself just instructed me to lock my Aadhaar and take this to the consumer forum.
Now, coming to my consent of sharing my Aadhaar. I consented solely because I had found Mitsu under .IN Registry's accredited Registrars list. https://www.registry.in/accredited-registrars
The onus is on .IN Registry now to answer why private entities are permitted to ask for KYC. .IN Registry is directly responsible for my consent and they must do the needful. Private entities can't be allowed to access KYC at any cost. What they can do is apparent from my case.
.IN Registy now mandates KYC for all .IN Domains. https://www.registry.in/kyc-mandatory
If KYC is compulsory, .IN Registry itself must create a portal for KYC and employ staff to do the verification. NO THIRD PARTY except .IN Registry should have access to KYC.
Over to .IN Registry now. They are responsible for my consent. Even if Mitsu has not misused my ID proof yet, there is no guarantee they wouldn't do that in the future. IDK/IDC what Mitsu says. They will have to answer why I was sent so many threats.
Last edited:
No private entity can force you to provide your Aadhar. They only make use of that because it provides them an easy route to do KYC. KYC can be done using other official documents like Passport, Voter Card, PAN, Driving License, etc. If they are forcing for only Aadhar based KYC then that is not legal. I would suggest locking your Aadhar and biometric (both can be locked separately) if not in use for legitimate reasons.
I was not forced with Aadhaar as the only option. But I chose it as it was one of the options. PAN is linked with Aadhaar. If Aadhaar can't be forced, then it shouldn't remain as an option either.
Thing is, I wouldn't feel safe providing third parties any of my ID Proof after this. It doesn't matter if it's Aadhaar or anything else.
All my ID Proofs are confidential between me and the government and if .IN Registry needs to do KYC, they must do it themselves. Nobody should provide any official document to Registrars. How .IN Registry does this is none of the Registrant's business.
I had purchased this domain to teach students free of cost. Not to waste my time dealing with these scammers. They'd never dare send me personal threats without having access to my official document. They checked my age from my ID proof to call me a 'child'. This just can't go on.
Didn't want to go through the hassle of doing that but I think I will.
Exactly, my standard reply to anybody who asks me for aadhaar. No bank no nothing has my aadhaar. Only govt institutions can insist (ask for written rules etc) for aadhaar or if you are getting benefit under a govt scheme.
New findings:
Mitsu.in doesn't just represent Mitsu Inc. It's the parent/merger/associate of at least sight entities as the following:
1. Bharat.in
2. PDR Ltd.
3. #1 Indian Domains (dba Mitsu.in)
4. Mitsu Inc.
5. NetEarth One, Inc.
6. Business Solutions
7. INRegistrar
8. https://domainsearchindia.com/ (Logo of this site reads "Azonic Infotech Pvt. Ltd.)
Mitsu.in in their Customer Domain Agreement: https://domainsearchindia.com/legal.php?requestfor=customerdomainagreement&from=agree_page
Coming to further analysis of my case, Mitsu.in wanted that lovely 500 rupees from me in full privacy to 'teach me a lesson' for daring to post their third class reply here on TechEnclave. When I complained about this attempted extortion to NCH, they screamed that my complain was 'false'. And on the call with my sister, they asserted the same conviction and called my complaint 'false'. Part of the call from this number +919322203242 on September 6, 2023 was this: "You're trying to extort money from us by filing false complaints. Now, we'll show you how to...." My sister intervened the screaming guy but what he was screaming is this: "We'll show you how to extort money."
If we connect this pattern with what I had posted here on my original post/thread starter, it'd be clear that this scandal was probably planned when mitsu.in saw this thread:
That's me giving mitsu.in a benefit of doubt honestly. Their 23 hour silence after 'we'll charge you if we do it' was already indicative of the 'mystical silence' after which they were going to charge me 500 INR. I reckon, I'd never receive the KB articles from mitsu (After 23+ hours) had I not created this thread and mentioned that they didn't send me any KB articles. This is as dark as it gets. Even without the existence of this thread, it was highly likely that they had already planned to charge me since I 'dared to argue'. This thread just added fuel to their fire.
This is how children react/behave. This is more a 'mentality' and 'psychological' issue than anything else honestly. This company doesn't know anything about professionalism. They are immovably convinced themselves that a (mere) consumer can't argue with them. Yes, they have mentioned countless times that I argued with them, for which I deserve this. What company calls a paid consumer a 'child' who they were 'sparing'?
Mitsu Inc has updated its agreements at least five times since September 5 with the very last one being in January 27, 2024. The very first one was on September 6, 2023. I have never seen any company updating their agreements that frequently. Their legal agreements are prepared very cunningly to keep all such incidents a 'secret'.
I have never explored the legal field in India myself but if Mitsu claims NDA on what I have posted here, that'd be iconic. Has any company filed NDA for third class responses like this? IDK, and if the court even considers this a valid filing, I say Indian Contract Act of 1872 is urgently due amendments. What I have posted here has nothing that can be classified as 'Confidential', 'Intellectual Property', 'Trade Secrets' and anything along that. NDA is being used as a weapon for criminal bullying if that's even applicable here.
It's the fight of a 'child' and a 'man-child' now. As much I hate wasting my time with these frauds, I'll not give up the fight. I'll try my best to ensure that this incident is never repeated with anybody else.
Mitsu.in doesn't just represent Mitsu Inc. It's the parent/merger/associate of at least sight entities as the following:
1. Bharat.in
2. PDR Ltd.
3. #1 Indian Domains (dba Mitsu.in)
4. Mitsu Inc.
5. NetEarth One, Inc.
6. Business Solutions
7. INRegistrar
8. https://domainsearchindia.com/ (Logo of this site reads "Azonic Infotech Pvt. Ltd.)
Mitsu.in in their Customer Domain Agreement: https://domainsearchindia.com/legal.php?requestfor=customerdomainagreement&from=agree_page
Coming to further analysis of my case, Mitsu.in wanted that lovely 500 rupees from me in full privacy to 'teach me a lesson' for daring to post their third class reply here on TechEnclave. When I complained about this attempted extortion to NCH, they screamed that my complain was 'false'. And on the call with my sister, they asserted the same conviction and called my complaint 'false'. Part of the call from this number +919322203242 on September 6, 2023 was this: "You're trying to extort money from us by filing false complaints. Now, we'll show you how to...." My sister intervened the screaming guy but what he was screaming is this: "We'll show you how to extort money."
If we connect this pattern with what I had posted here on my original post/thread starter, it'd be clear that this scandal was probably planned when mitsu.in saw this thread:
That's me giving mitsu.in a benefit of doubt honestly. Their 23 hour silence after 'we'll charge you if we do it' was already indicative of the 'mystical silence' after which they were going to charge me 500 INR. I reckon, I'd never receive the KB articles from mitsu (After 23+ hours) had I not created this thread and mentioned that they didn't send me any KB articles. This is as dark as it gets. Even without the existence of this thread, it was highly likely that they had already planned to charge me since I 'dared to argue'. This thread just added fuel to their fire.
This is how children react/behave. This is more a 'mentality' and 'psychological' issue than anything else honestly. This company doesn't know anything about professionalism. They are immovably convinced themselves that a (mere) consumer can't argue with them. Yes, they have mentioned countless times that I argued with them, for which I deserve this. What company calls a paid consumer a 'child' who they were 'sparing'?
Mitsu Inc has updated its agreements at least five times since September 5 with the very last one being in January 27, 2024. The very first one was on September 6, 2023. I have never seen any company updating their agreements that frequently. Their legal agreements are prepared very cunningly to keep all such incidents a 'secret'.
I have never explored the legal field in India myself but if Mitsu claims NDA on what I have posted here, that'd be iconic. Has any company filed NDA for third class responses like this? IDK, and if the court even considers this a valid filing, I say Indian Contract Act of 1872 is urgently due amendments. What I have posted here has nothing that can be classified as 'Confidential', 'Intellectual Property', 'Trade Secrets' and anything along that. NDA is being used as a weapon for criminal bullying if that's even applicable here.
It's the fight of a 'child' and a 'man-child' now. As much I hate wasting my time with these frauds, I'll not give up the fight. I'll try my best to ensure that this incident is never repeated with anybody else.
For any address proof you can give a masked Aadhar, downloading it from UIDAI portal. The first 8 digits are masked and the last four digits are only visible.
Went through the conversation with UIDAI once again. UIDAI didn't mention Aadhaar specifically. They had told me that I shouldn't have submitted any KYC after such threats from Mitsu. As for your reply, see the following:
1. I had asked mitsu.in the same question beforehand:
2. To which they replied this and threatened to charge me 500 since I 'argued':
3. I got scared and submitted my full unmasked Aadhaar to them:
I don't have words to describe these lowlifes.
@rsaeon Can you explain how this works? How are so many companies intertwined here? @TEUser2K1
Mitsu has different 'Registrar Registrant Agreements' or 'RRA' for different TLDs:
1. PDR Ltd or https://publicdomainregistry.com/ for the following TLDs:
.biz, .info, .com, .org, .us, .name, .eu, .mobi, .mn, .net, .asia, .tel, .nom.co, .co, .ca, .net.au, .xxx, .in.net, .xyz, .website, .ooo, .tech, .site, .email, .org.nz
2. #1 Indian Domains RRA for the following TLDs:
.in, .us.in, .भारत
3. Mitsu Inc RRA for the follwing TLDs:
.org.uk, .uk
4. Net Earth One Inc RRA for this solitary TLD:
.io
What exactly is Mitsu Inc? Why is #1 Indian Domains doing business as Mitsu.in? Is Mitsu Inc not eligible itself to be a .IN Registrar? If no, how does it have .org.uk, .uk under its name? They advertise on their site that they are an accredited .UK registrar but are they? Read below:
1. Advertisement 1
2. Advertisement 2
I looked up the official Registry for .UK domain names and it's Nominet : https://nominet.uk/. I browsed their Accredited Registrars list. https://registrars.nominet.uk/uk-namespace/registrar-agreement/list-of-registrars/ There is a tick mark for the listed Registrars that are accredited as you can see below:
Tick marks against accredited .UK Registrars:
No tick mark against Mitsu Inc. and that means... They are not accredited?
Also, Mitsu Inc is 'trading as' Mitsu. What? What exactly is Mitsu then, if not Mitsu Inc.?
Also, the pricing listed on PDR is just bizarre. Copy-paste everywhere and the site is broken. This was the gaining registrar for Net 4 India btw. https://publicdomainregistry.com/pricing/
Last edited:
rsaeon
Guide
This is conjecture but it could be a couple of reasons. There's very little money in the domain/hosting market so they rely on a large number of customers to be profitable, and this usually means having different business names registered with the same details while providing the same service, but at different price points.
These days you'll see it with cloud kitchens on food delivery apps, I've seen one that has 30+ 'restaurants' for the same address and FSSAI number and yes, it's completely legal (at least for food delivery). Swiggy pretends they don't care while Zomato will show you the other brands of any cloud kitchen that shares the same address/FSSAI number.
It's an older practice of business that goes back decades, like how Lexus and Toyota are the same company but people already had an impression of Toyota so when they wanted more wealthier customers, they created the Lexus brand. There are many, many examples of this.
Going back to the issue with Mitsu and quoting from another domain registrar on Page 2:
I added emphasis on two key points. If I am a .IN registrar, then I am authorized to ask for your adhaar because I make the rules and in this position, I am acting as a representative of the Government of India.
Some ccTLDs appear to be harmless, like .IO and .CC but in the end, you're leasing the domain from a country/registrar that has the right to enforce new rules or revoke your lease at any given point.
ccTLDs are not worth the hassle unless you're willing to be subservient to that country and that registrar.
Before I begin my reply, could you tell me how Mitsu is advertising itself as an accredited .UK Registrar when they are not accredited by Nominet? Why is their accreditation not reflecting on Nominet's site?
Registrars such as Mitsu are private, non-government entities. Acting as a govt representative is a punishable offence if they even attempt to do that. The domain contract between the Registrant and Registrar mirrors the contract between Registry and the Registrar. .IN Registry Accreditation is just a contract between .IN Registry and Registrars. Accreditation is not some super power granted to Registrars to exercise fraudulent practices. RAA authorizing Registrars to do KYC probably didn't account for the possibility of any company being this unprofessional. That's a glitch that they need to fix now. That being said, any violation of the RAA means termination of that lease/contract for Registrars. Registrars are just as much in a lease as the Registrants.
Logically speaking, private companies like Mitsu shouldn't even dare do what Mitsu has done with me. This is an anomaly. There is just no regulation, no transparency, no professionalism, no ethics, no morals. My experience with Mitsu has been worse than dealing with local street vendors.
Never in my wildest of dreams did I think that I'd end up with a company that'd hold my review as 'ransom' to release my domain.
I say the quoted statement is worded wrong. What it says is applicable for Government entities such as ERNET India: https://ernet.in/ that act as Registrars for the .IN TLD.
Registrars such as Mitsu are private, non-government entities. Acting as a govt representative is a punishable offence if they even attempt to do that. The domain contract between the Registrant and Registrar mirrors the contract between Registry and the Registrar. .IN Registry Accreditation is just a contract between .IN Registry and Registrars. Accreditation is not some super power granted to Registrars to exercise fraudulent practices. RAA authorizing Registrars to do KYC probably didn't account for the possibility of any company being this unprofessional. That's a glitch that they need to fix now. That being said, any violation of the RAA means termination of that lease/contract for Registrars. Registrars are just as much in a lease as the Registrants.
Logically speaking, private companies like Mitsu shouldn't even dare do what Mitsu has done with me. This is an anomaly. There is just no regulation, no transparency, no professionalism, no ethics, no morals. My experience with Mitsu has been worse than dealing with local street vendors.
Registrars are required by the RAA itself to enforce new rules by .IN Registry. The Registrar itself can bring forth additional rules to the table, but the Registrant's interests are duly covered and protected in the RAA/Registrant's T&C. No Registrar can touch that. Registrars can't revoke the lease without a valid reason/violation, and if they do, their Accreditation gets terminated. That's the rule. My domain has been illegally suspended and put on 'Client Hold' for over 5 months over an attempted scam. And in case you missed it, they were contacted by NIXI and were ready to release my domain had I deleted this thread on January 1. You guess what's going on here. NIXI itself had requested Mitsu to release the domain and Mitsu is playing with NIXI by not co-operating with .IN Registry. Cool story ain't it?
Never in my wildest of dreams did I think that I'd end up with a company that'd hold my review as 'ransom' to release my domain.
Last edited:
rsaeon
Guide
Short answer, it doesn't matter. Maybe their accreditation is pending, maybe they have an agreement with another registrar to process .UK registrations. Asking why is just as useful as asking why their pollution control certificate is expired and not yet renewed — it has no bearing on your case.
At least one of my domain registrations required me to print out and fill in a paper form, and then courier it to some far-off country. Not all registrars are online and not all of them process things digitally or by themselves.
Correct.
Also correct.
Incorrect.
Companies that process .IN domains are directly answerable to the Government of India, with or without any intermediary bodies. It's the same with every single ccTLD, each and every one is answerable to their own government, both directly and indirectly. Meaning that the Prime Minister of UK can personally request a .UK domain to be invalidated, if he feels like it. Same with the Prime Minister of Afghanistan, or Colombia. This is why ccTLDs are such a problem and why in recent years there's a myriad of completely private domains like .LOL and .PRO — the domain industry is moving away from the interference of governments.
Mitsu's attitude/ego stems from this "power" they've been granted but also from the fear they have should they be found lacking in any way. They know they're only allowed to operate because the government allows it, not because they have any right of their own. They're at the mercy of the Government of India and they will act in a way to make sure they're not at fault, this is why they can force a user to provide adhaar and why they can invalidate registrations without refund if the user refuses.
Another key point is that you're a user, not a customer. You're leasing/renting — not purchasing/owning.
How the world should work and how it actually works is never the same unless it's inside a movie or a book.
Have you read about what happened with Net4India? How many years and how many thousands of complaints it took for ICANN to do anything?
An Update for Net 4 India Registrants
As hundreds of Net 4 India Limited registrants continue to face challenges regarding the renewal, transfer, and management of their domain name registrations, ICANN provides an update on ongoing efforts to assist registrants.
The sad reality is that there's thousands before you and there will be thousands after you. It's the nature of a market where you don't own what you pay for, especially when you pay less than the actual cost.
You can try your best to understand how the system works but it might be better to ask yourself why Jio.in isn't operational — not even as a redirect. Stay away from ccTLDs.
To put it in plainer words: Not even Asia's richest man can deal with the bureaucracy that comes with ccTLDs.
I had not read anything regarding Net4India. That ICANN post somehow resembles my thread here. Seriously, I didn't expect a registrar to ignore mails from ICANN!Have you read about what happened with Net4India? How many years and how many thousands of complaints it took for ICANN to do anything?
An Update for Net 4 India Registrants
As hundreds of Net 4 India Limited registrants continue to face challenges regarding the renewal, transfer, and management of their domain name registrations, ICANN provides an update on ongoing efforts to assist registrants.www.icann.org
Point in case, ICANN should've duly amended it's regulations to ensure that that such unethical practices were never repeated. But here I am, dealing with the same thing in 2024!
Thing is the user never refused to submit KYC here. Good luck to them proving their 'innocence' to the government now.
Precisely the reason I'll get my domain back.
I didn't know anything about pricing. If they are pricing products less than they actually can, that's on .IN Registry to resolve. The user or leaser has nothing to do here.
Unexpected surprise!!
I am a young student/teacher or a 'child' in Mitsu's words. If nobody has done it before, I will. Mark my words.