Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Please could Neulevel respond re: unexplained "unlocking" of names under investigation

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

My response follows below...

----- Original Message -----
From: William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>

> The questions you are asking are not only irrelevant, but quite
> frankly if I were Neulevel's management, I'd tell you to that they are
> none of your business.
>
> You seem to think that they have some obligation to give you the
> details of any transaction that you decide to inquire about.
>
> I'd tell you where to shove it if I were them.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>

William, I respect Neulevel's right to deal privately with its customers.
(And I quite like the way you've argued it - you often amuse me with your
colourful use of imagery and forceful, moody atmospherics!)

My response would be: we're talking about a global resource and for almost 4
months now, names have been "locked" and Neulevel has failed in their
responsibility to distribute those names. I think that's an issue that can
be legitimately voiced in the public domain. If the names were in breach of
registration agreements then they should be released to the general
public... that's what a registry is for, after all. If the names were NOT in
breach of registration agreements then they should be released to the
original registrants : it is unacceptable that Neulevel simply deprives them
of what they bought... that is NOT what a registry is for!

In the case of names which HAVE been locked, and then suddenly get unlocked,
I think it's reasonable to ask Jeff Neuman if this was done on purpose or by
mistake. That's basically what I'm asking Jeff. Did he authorise the
unlocking of those names? Is it all above board? Because the circumstances
have given rise to concern (and not just me). So I'm just keen for Jeff
Neuman to come clean and say, yes, I DID authorise the unlocking of those
names, everything's above board. He hasn't done that and it would be very
easy for him to do so, without compromising his integrity with his
customers.

Of course, much more important from the public's point of view, is the
integrity of the Neulevel registry - which stipulated as a condition of
registration that .biz names should only be bought with the intent of doing
business through them, NOT with the intent of selling them on at a profit.
Neulevel were right to investigate names which were instantly advertised for
sale, or bought in their thousands by a single applicant with a reputation
for speculation - but I'd like to think that such an investigation has been
rational and consistent. What I actually find is that SOME of a registrant's
names have been locked and OTHERS have not. I find names being transferred
within the same company/site and then being unlocked. So at the very least,
Jeff Neuman should be happy to confirm the legitimacy of his decisions and
indicate that he is not acting arbitrarily with something which is
essentially the public's resource, not his.

Given the context of a resource that should be available to the general
public, I think that's a fair line of enquiry. Given (in addition) the
context of the registrants involved in my previous mail, and the change of
names that occurred simultaneous to the unlocking, I think it makes it
doubly legitimate to check out that this was all authorised by Neulevel.
That's all. He should be able to say: Yep. We agreed to it. It's fine.

Or were the names locked and unlocked at Registrar level, in which case
Neulevel is not controlling the integrity of its own registry? The case of
Cass Foster and C. Finkelstein (both of same address and phone number) is a
strange one. I'm not asking Neulevel to enter into customer details with me,
but I do think it's legitimate for Neulevel to endorse what it seems has
been done with the names they are responsible for, and to reassure the
Internet public that Neulevel themselves were behind the locking and
unlocking, and what appears to be have been the transfer of over a hundred
names to the same person/household in order to justify the unlocking (since
the two things happened simultaneously).

Did Neulevel authorise the unlocking? Simple question.

Openness and transparency, William. Not much to ask.


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