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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all,

  Thank you for this very good in depth and demonstrably accurate
review and update Richard.  BTW a similar situation is seemingly
occurring with the .US registry operated by Nuestar...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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."

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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