[ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge

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

Dear Jeff and Vint

I'd like to ask your advice on ICANN and Neulevel's policy with regard to
Registrars applying for names (particularly in queued Landrush situations)
on their own behalf. As you know, I have already alluded to concerns I had
over Signature Domains, and I look forward to some kind of response - to the
principles, if not to the personal details, of this case.

I'd also like to draw to your attention - without making any allegations -
the case of 007names. In the recent .biz Group 2B names release, 465 names
were registered through them, with over half (258) going to their client
Vitty Inc.

These names were issued to Paul Chou, e-mail address domain@Vitty.com . In
the "About" section of Vitty.com there is more information about Mr Chou. It
notes that he founded a company called Webex.net (a registrar, parent
company of sinonet.com, no reference to vitty.com) with his wife, Joyce Lin.
Further whois searches found that the Admin, Billing and Tech Contacts for
007names.com is Joyce Lin of Bridgewater, NJ. 007names.com is hosted by
(surprise) webex.net on the same server as vitty.com.  Webex.net of
Bridgewater, NJ comes up as non-existent in the WHOIS server release 1.0,
but in version 1.3 they show that 007Names, Inc. is their registrar.

My questions are these: are registrars allowed to apply for names in
landrush situations through their own Registrar company? Are the families of
Registrars allowed to apply for - say - the majority of names submitted in a
queue? Do a husband and wife constitute a single entity? Does a Registrar
have the right to exploit the advantage of their own position to dominate a
queue, in a way which might disadvantage many other people?

I'm not making a personal observation on the actions of Vitty Inc or
007names. I'm curious about the facts behind their dealings. But my approach
to you is in order to get clarification of the rules (which obviously impact
on other consumers). I would also respectfully ask you to investigate this
specific case if you feel that any rules have been broken and your other
customers have been disadvantaged in breach of any agreements.

If no rules have been broken, then probably no personal criticism is
appropriate, but in that scenario I would call into question the processes
that have been set up between ICANN, the Registry and its registrars, as
there seem to me to be inadequate safeguards for the majority of ordinary
customers, and too much scope for what I would describe as "insider dealing"
in the distribution of what should be made publicly available to everybody
on fair and level terms.

Many thanks for your attention.

Richard Henderson


--
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