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

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

Thank you Vint

In answer to your question about anyone losing out, I refer you to a post
from "Fairuser" on the ICANN NewTLD Forum tonight.

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3CBA27
D500000380

" I bid on several 2B .biz names in 007names's auction, and was the high
bidder on about 25 of them.  Some of them did have (bogus) IP claims on
them, and I did receive cancel/proceed notices from Neulevel, so I know that
007names really did indeed submit my applications to Neulevel.  I didn't end
up with any of the names I applied for through 007names.
Given the number of participating registrars, and the fact that these were
relatively desirable generic names, this result shouldn't be _too_
surprising (though I would have expected to get at least one or two).
However, it does seem to indicate that Vitty Inc. must have submitted
several thousand applications to end up with 258 successful registrations
through 007names (unless all they got were particularly undesirable names
that most registrars didn't even submit applications for -- which I doubt).
That doesn't necessarily mean that Vitty Inc. received preferential
treatment from 007names -- in fact, the way that Vitty Inc. structured its
auction, the only fee payable up front was a one-time $80 processing fee, no
matter how many domain names one placed bids on, so there was an incentive
to bid on lots of domain names."

And my reply:

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldevaluationprocess;3CBA2D
3700000385

"Yes that's about right, because statistically that's roughly the ratio that
applications to registrations worked out : for example, one registrar friend
of mine submitted 2000 applications for clients, and the total they actually
got registered was 215 names.
Obviously the ratio was different for NetSol who gained 1947 names, but
largely for non-generics.

Yes, many of Vitty's names were desirable ones.

Please note: I am not in any way suggesting that Vitty got preferential
treatment inside 007's queue. I'm just saying that if Registrars apply for
themselves (or their partners) what do they have to charge themselves?
What's to stop them having many more applications than other people because
they don't have to pay the same? Maybe Vitty were acting on behalf of THEIR
clients. Maybe all that was above board. But there is an issue, when a
Registrar (or pair of Registrars) apply internally for names through their
own registry... that's an issue I direct at ICANN, not at
007/Vitty/Webex/Thailand's only accredited ICANN registrar... I'd just like
to know the facts from Vint, from Jeff, on the rules, on the problems.

I'm fairly clear on the impact on consumers.

Take the example of "Fairuser" and his 25 applications. If the list had been
thousands of names shorter, he would have had a far higher chance of getting
some of his names.

So regardless of the rules, he might have lost out."

Yes Vint, I am left wondering if "Fairuser" (and many others like him/her)
were interested parties who didn't experience a fair opportunity to register
their names, because if a Registrar DID flood his queue with, say, two
thousand applications - then instantly that is likely to significantly
reduce or remove the opportunity for the public customers to register their
names.

When you extend this to other Registrars who seem to have been exploiting
their privileges at the expense of others, it's a matter of serious concern,
which I feel should lead to a review of the process (given that this is all
"proof of concept") but also I feel that the process should be reviewed IN
ADVANCE of .info Landrush 2, otherwise we're back to square 1, with a
repetition of the same problems.

Thank you, Vint, for answering my mail. You may think I'm a pain, but I'm
just following a line of logic, and I think you're intelligent enough to
understand that it's nothing personal. Nevertheless, I'll probably continue
challenging the issues where I think the consumer is losing out.

Kind regards

Richard Henderson






----- Original Message -----
From: vint cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; Neuman, Jeff
<Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>; Legal-NeuLevel <Legal@Neulevel.Biz>
Cc: <halloran@icann.org>; <jeff@air-speed.com>; <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>;
<DEvans@doc.gov>; <ksmith@ntia.doc.gov>; <krose@ntia.doc.gov>; Karl Auerbach
<karl@cavebear.com>; Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>;
<lsuzukamo@pioneerpress.com>; <gtld@gtldregistries.org>; <ga@dnso.org>;
<council@dnso.org>; <jarcher@registrationtek.com>; <aspaces@powerup.com.au>;
<sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>; <conno001@maroon.tc.umn.edu>; <lynn@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge


> Richard,
>
> One question that bears on this process is whether any interested party
> did not experience fair opportunity to register a name. That's not quite
> what you were asking but it has relevance to assessing sunrise processes.
> The second question is whether any of the registrars were, effectively,
> trading on their own accounts (that is, not registering names they
intended
> to use themselves or on behalf of customers but intended hold and sell at
> a later time). I don't know whether the current registrar agreements with
> ICANN treat the specifics of your questions below, but I will try to find
> out.
>
> vint
>
> At 01:20 AM 4/15/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >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