[ga] Public Statement to the Boards of Afilias, Neulevel, ICANN and the Subcommittee for Telecommunications and the Internet

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE INTERNET CHALLENGE
TO AFILIAS, NEULEVEL, ICANN and DoC
Date: 5th April 2002
( http://www.theInternetChallenge.com/biz_publicstatement.htm )
(Copies e-mailed to Directors, CEOs, Committee Members, and the Press)

ICANN has the responsibility of making sure the DNS is administered in the
public interest, guaranteeing the fair distribution of domain names, made
available to everyone.

To this end, they construct agreements with Registrars which should be
designed to make sure that this public interest is served.

In the roll-out of the .info domains, the registry agreement failed to
protect the .info Registry from fraudulent claimants and dishonest
registrars who overwhelmed the 'Sunrise' process for name distribution.

One claimant, for example, gained 4981 names with fraudulent Trademark
details. Some registrars were proved to have acted fraudulently. The public
interest was not served because consumers who had a right to obtain these
names (and in many cases had paid money) were denied the chance since the
names had been stolen.

Consequently, 15000 names are about to be re-launched in what is being
termed ( http://www.nic.info/register/landrush2 )  the .info Landrush 2.

It is imperative that ICANN acts, through amendment of the
Registry/Registrar agreement, to define the ethical and commercial
constraints within which Registrars must act, so that further registrar
abuse of the system does not occur in this .info Landrush 2.

This has been made even more essential by events in the .biz 2B distribution
of 39000 most-prized names in the past week.

Once again the ICANN agreement, and the Registry/Registrar agreement, has
failed to stop registrars and certain registrants from exploiting the system
at the expense of the worldwide community.

Examples of the inadequacies of the agreements set in place by ICANN and
Neulevel include:

A Registrar, (http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_signaturedomains.htm)
Signature Domains, who obtained 10 names... ALL TEN NAMES are registered to
Joshua Blacker - who has since admitted that he is a partner of Signature
Domains. Not a single other name was registered for any other customer
through Signature Domains in the .biz2B names release.

A Registrar,
(http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_domainregistrationservices.htm )
Domain Registration Services, who have obtained 226 names... ALL 226 NAMES
are registered to The Website Inc (Palmyra) - not a single other name was
registered for anyone else in the .biz 2B release.

A Registrar, (http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_xinnetcorp.htm) Xin
Net Corp, who have obtained 151 names... ALL 151 NAMES are registered to
Zansong Lin - not a single other registrant obtained a name through Xin Net
Corp in the .biz 2B name release.

A Registrar, (http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_bondillc.htm) Bondi
LLC, who obtained 100 names. 93 went to Marco Publishing, 7 to a Ms Lecocke,
and not a single other registrant obtained a name through Bondi LLC in the
.biz 2B name release.

A Registrar, (http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_phillipinereg.htm)
Phillipine Registry .com, who obtained 123 names... ALL 123 NAMES are
registered to Tarek Soliman. Not a single name was obtained through
Phillipine Registry .com by any other registrant in the .biz 2B name
release.

A Registrar, (http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_tldsinc.htm) TLDs Inc,
who obtained 192 names... ALL 192 NAMES are registered to dotPartnersLLC -
not a single other name was registered through TLDs Inc for any other
customer in the .biz 2B names release.

These six cases of Registrars appearing to exploit their privileges against
the public interest were able to take place because inadequate safeguards or
rules on registrar conduct were required in the agreements with ICANN. These
agreements were so flimsy that they could be flouted at will by those who
set out to exploit the system even if it damaged the integrity of the
Registry.

A number of companies purchased in excess of 2000 names each in the .biz 2B
release, flouting the rule that stipulated .biz names should not be
purchased for speculative sale for profit. Notwithstanding this rule,
RegisterNamesHere.com applied for thousands of names and is now advertising
2089 for sale (http://www.registernameshere.com/dotbiz2b.html) at its
website or view
here(http://www.theinternetchallenge.com/biz_namesforsale.htm).

It is inexplicable that the registry Neulevel failed to plan a process to
check and weed out spurious mass purchases on this scale (but exactly the
same thing happened in the Afilias Sunrise process).

The Registry has now been requested by consumers to investigate these cases
and take retrospective action (as they have a contractual right) to delete
names if, for example, the integrity of the process and the interests of the
public are damaged by improper applications:

The TLD Agreement with ICANN, Appendix F (defining the Registry-Registrar
Agreement), Exhibit E, Section III: Allows for the Registry to CANCEL
registrations (i) "to protect the integrity of the Registry".

Jeff Neuman, for the Registry,
(http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3CAB2
3EF000001DE) has responded that he is investigating. More importantly,
ICANN, which is mandated by DoC to make sure that the DNS is administered in
the public interest, has been called upon to intervene and protect the
interests of consumers.
(http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3CAC0
CB200000201) The response from Chairman Vint Cerf has as yet been limited.

ICANN was previously asked to intervene over Afilias's .info Sunrise
shambles, after it had failed to insist that adequate safeguards be put in
place to prevent fraud. It did not act. On the contrary, it has continued to
accredit and promote registrars whose actions were demonstrably fraudulent.

Once again, no adequate safeguards were required to constrain the behaviour
of registrars or registrants in the .biz 2B name release. ICANN has been
asked to intervene or deal with the 'rogue' registrars. To date, no action
has been taken .

There is now an extremely urgent need for ICANN to intervene to prevent
exactly the same situation, of registrars applying on behalf of single
favoured clients or on behalf of themselves, in the .info Landrush 2 in a
few weeks time.

The Afilias Registry has given registrars the freedom to decide their own
policies for name submissions. In the Afilias Website/Landrush2/faq they
say: "It's up to each registrar to set their policies regarding the names in
their queue."

This is a deeply disturbing statement. It seems to be saying: "Registrars
police yourselves. There are no rules."

If Registrars are being told they can set their own policies regarding their
queues, then what is there to stop the SIX Registrars who submitted "SINGLE
REGISTRANT" queues for .biz doing the same all over again (and arguably
being joined by other Registrars)?
If Afilias say "It's up to each registrar to set their policies regarding
the names in their queue" then a Registrar can decide that their policy is
to put all their friends and family at the top of the queue.

This is not the public interest for which ICANN was set up.

It's unacceptable because it will simply invite a repeat - on an even larger
scale - of registrars submitting single-client lists which exclude the
public and are wholly at odds with the public interest.

There is therefore a grave and imminent danger that the Afilias .info
fraud - which was described by Board Director Robert Connelly in his
resignation letter as "an abomination" - will be perpetuated in this second
attempt to release the names.

WE HAVE THEREFORE REQUESTED, as a consumer interest group with supporters in
35 countries, that:

1. Neulevel investigates the Registrars whose application lists excluded the
public and provided top names for a single favoured client or themselves.

2. Neulevel makes a statement to define what action it proposes to take to
redress the prejudice suffered by paying customers of other registrars, and
to repair the damage done to the integrity of its own processes (bearing in
mind that in its initial sales pitch to win the registry it declared,
"domain names must be allocated in an entirely impartial manner so that no
party or parties may claim special privilege in registering a domain name in
the new TLD space").

3.Neulevel passes on its experiences to ICANN and Afilias, well in advance
of the .info Landrush 2, so that these two parties can judge the risks they
need to forestall or circumvent in the coming .info Landrush.

4. ICANN intervenes to make sure that the public interest is served by the
adequacy of Neulevel's responses.

5. ICANN makes a clear public statement, defining the constraints on
registrars to prevent them providing for themselves rather than the
worldwide public; and making clear that loss of accreditation will result
from breach of these constraints.

6. ICANN intervenes to revise Afilias's Registry/Registrar agreement in
order to prevent a repeat abuse of this registrar privilege, and to make
sure that the public have access to apply through ALL registrars (indeed,
there is a strong case for requiring registrars to publish their ongoing
lists of applicants for various names, and for the Registry to publish all
lists submitted to them, in the interests of openness and transparency).

7. DoC investigate ICANN's administration of the DNS generally, and look
specifically at the maladministration relating to the roll-out of the New
TLDs. The Internet Challenge, among many others, is ready and willing to
testify to Congress, with detailed evidence and documentation.

The reasons for this seventh request arise from ICANN's own inept
performance. We appreciate that ICANN has been encouraged to de-regulate in
order to promote private-sector competition in the development of the DNS.
However, DoC has to consider a change of management, if ICANN abandons its
public-interest role in favour of an unregulated free-for-all which leaves
the consumer with inadequate protection.

It is the failure to regulate against abuse through adequate agreements, the
failure to respond to consumer concerns, and the failure to intervene when
it could have intervened to set things right, which severely calls into
question the legitimacy of ICANN and its management.

Although we have cited some specific examples of mismanagement (particularly
referring to the flimsy 'safeguards' in the TLD agreements which allowed -
in fact, almost invited - serious registrar and registrant abuses to occur)
there is also a need to understand the more generalised culture of
corruption, insider-dealing, conflicts of interest, and lack of openness -
all of which have been accommodated, and some of which have been embraced.

There has been a demonstrable lack of accountability exercised, supported by
opaque decision-making, and a loss of transparency. Not only has ICANN been
part of the problem by failing to implement stringent agreements : it has
also appeared to condone fraud and abuse, by taking no action against it.
That is why it is now recurring in each successive release of new names. It
has presided over matters of serious concern to the public, but failed to
enter into meaningful dialogue, or respond to fair questions posed by
consumers.

Examples of this inaction include : the failure to intervene when it became
clear that the .info Sunrise fraud was taking place; the failure to promote
the clear-cut 'Domebase' solution which would have made Landrush 2
unnecessary; the failure to investigate the $500,000 made by the companies
of an Afilias Director and the Afilias CEO, for the submission of ineligible
names, which submission appeared to abuse Afilias's own rules and their
ICANN contract; the failure to remove accreditation or take any sanctions
against registrars who were shown by WIPO to have engaged in fraud; the
ongoing failure to engage in open and detailed dialogue on issues, as
demonstrated and exemplified by
(http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3CAC0
CB200000201) Vint Cerf's oracular one-sentence responses which seem opaque
and impenetrable.

The Internet Challenge concludes by emphasising a specific immediate need:
ICANN MUST REVISE REGISTRAR RULES AND AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE .INFO LANDRUSH
GOES AHEAD.

The Internet Challenge also calls on DoC and the Subcommittee with oversight
for ICANN, to investigate this state of affairs, in the interests of the
consumer - but also in the interests of the industry's integrity. There are
many decent and hard-working registrars who are fed up with the shenanigans
of ICANN and a minority of 'bandit' companies who have been given free rein
to do as they please.

The DoC should also consider that as it has oversight and responsibility for
ICANN, the maladministration of a worldwide resource casts the US Government
in a very poor light, associating it with fraud, incompetence, and failure.

We call for a Congressional hearing.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Internet Challenge is chaired by Richard Henderson. It is a UK-based
consumer protection group with membership in over 30 countries. If you would
like to join, you can write to Richard Henderson, Berkhamsted Castle,
Berkhamsted, Herts HP4 1LJ England or just:  mail@theInternetChallenge.com

This public statement can be used in whole or part in any newspaper,
periodical, magazine, or online website. Press: telephone +44.(0)1442863838
for further information or interviews.

"The Internet and its precious resources belong to the whole world : for its
freedom, for its justice, for better understanding between communities."








--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html