ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?


Title: Help
Mr. Henderson:
 
Which "one" would you like me to answer?
 
I have worked with Mr. Hendeles and his companies in the past, although I have not received any compensation (consulting fees, salary, etc) from Mr. Hendeles or his companies in over two years since the submission of ICM Registry's proposal. I believe the randomized round-round mechanism used by both Afilias (Sunrise, Land Rush and Land Rush 2) and NeuStar (Class IIB) to be legal and one of several equitable ways to reallocate domain names.
 
Take the time and read ICM Registry's proposal. You will see that it proposes a different allocation scheme, one which I also believe to be legal and equitable.
 
Based upon my involvement with the ICANN Registrar Constituency I have learned that no two registrar business models are a like. One of the reasons that ICANN was created was to create competition at the registrar and registry level.  As to your open ended question about what is fair and what is not, I respectfully choose not to step into that morass.
 
I am sure as a father you have had your three girls say to you daddy that is not fair. My three year old son has done the same on many occasions. When I was growing up my dad told me on many occasions that life was not fair. As an engineering undergrad I remember one exam where after four pages of complex mathematical calculations, I transposed a number. I received zero points for the problem despite clearly understanding the concept and the method to solve the problem. When I went to the professor to seek partial credit for my work, he told me that engineering is an exact science. If I was to build a bridge and make the same mistake would I receive partial credit for the people that died when the bridge collapsed.
 
After practicing as an engineer for a number of years, I found it challenging to switch gears from an exact science such as engineering to law which was not so exact, at least US common law. The challenge of equitably reallocating domain names either at the launch of the registry or in connection with deleting domain name is not easy. Every approach has pros and cons. There is no one right answer that I am aware of. Therefore, I believe that registries and registrars should be allowed to allocate names in any manner which does not violate the law.  
 
Best regards,
 
Michael D. Palage
 
P.S. These are my personal view points and do not necessarily reflect the position of any client(s).
 
P.P.S Please be advised that I do have business relationship with various UK entities, and that I consider your posting to this list to be made in the UK.
 
P.P.P.S I will be spending the rest of the day with my son watching the American football playoff, so I will not have the time to engage in any further dialog, cheers.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:05 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

 
 
If Registrar R217 (who submitted the second shortest list in the .biz2B and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A Technology Company, Inc...

then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, and I suspect that this list was closed to the public so that its own owners could benefit...

The practice of some registrars in submitting deliberately short lists to "queue-jump" in Landrush situations was demonstrated very clearly in .biz2B and .info LR2. The shorter your list, the sooner your name came up in the round-robin process. Some registrars like Signature Domains appear to have applied for a tiny number of domains just for themselves, to play the system. I believe Jason Hendeles was involved in the same thing.

Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ATech Registrars
Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ICM Registry Inc

Michael Palage of Afilias is/was linked to ICM as their Chief Policy Officer. He has confirmed this in his "Disclosure" in the Registrars Mailing List in December 2001.

ICM may have been hoping to run a new .XXX registry and gained adult.info in LR2, using their co-company ATech Registrars

This means that ATech submitted a tiny list (to gain advantage) and submitted this application for its own co-company and co-owner

WHOIS details - showing Jason's e-mail:

Domain ID:  D2264928-LRMS 
Domain Name:  ADULT.INFO 
Created On:  13-Jul-2002 19:16:49 UTC 
Expiration Date:  13-Jul-2004 19:16:49 UTC 
Sponsoring Registrar:  A Technology Company dba Namesystem.com (R217-LRMS) 
Status:  HOLD 
Status:  OK 
Registrant ID:  C2355539-LRMS 
Registrant Name:  Cadomain RegistrY Inc 
Registrant Organization:  Cadomain Registry, Inc 
Registrant Street1:  130 Adelaide Street West 
Registrant Street2:  Suit 2500 
Registrant City:  Toronto 
Registrant State/Province:  Ontario 
Registrant Postal Code:  M4H 2M2 
Registrant Country:  CA 
Registrant Phone:  +1.4168681080 
Registrant Email:  admin@icmregistry.com 
Admin ID:  C2355554-LRMS 
Admin Name:  A Technology Company Inc 
Admin Organization:  A Technology Company Inc 
Admin Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens 
Admin City:  Toronto 
Admin State/Province:  Ontario 
Admin Postal Code:  M4W 1P 
Admin Country:  CA 
Admin Phone:  +1.4169293695 
Admin Email:  jason@icmregistry.com 
Billing ID:  C2355554-LRMS 
Billing Name:  A Technology Company Inc 
Billing Organization:  A Technology Company Inc 
Billing Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens 
Billing City:  Toronto 
Billing State/Province:  Ontario 
Billing Postal Code:  M4W 1P 
Billing Country:  CA 
Billing Phone:  +1.4169293695 
Billing Email:  jason@icmregistry.com 
Tech ID:  C2355554-LRMS 
Tech Name:  A Technology Company Inc 
Tech Organization:  A Technology Company Inc 
Tech Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens 
Tech City:  Toronto 
Tech State/Province:  Ontario 
Tech Postal Code:  M4W 1P 
Tech Country:  CA 
Tech Phone:  +1.4169293695 
Tech Email:  jason@icmregistry.com

Who are Cadomain Registry?

I found this, also run, it seems by Jason Hendeles:

#N .cadomain.ca
#S .CA Domain;
#O Cadomain Registry, Inc.
#C Jason Hendeles
#E admin@dotpower.com
#T +1 416 410 3091
#P Cadomain Registry, Inc., 23 McKayfield Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 4P6
#R Automatically generated from a .CA domain registration form
#W registry@cs.toronto.edu (UUCP Liaison); Wed Sep  1 03:55:28 -0400 1999
#
# cadomain.ca is a For-Profit Corporation, Federally Incorporated
#
# Domain Registration Services, Certificate of Incorporation
# 365132-1
#
# received: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
# approved: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
#

Ref/ URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/path/u.can.87

And the Dotpower.com in Jason Hendeles e-mail here?
Well, you find it through the WHOIS, which identifies jason@icmregistry.com as Jason Hendeles:

Domain Name: DOTPOWER.COM
   Registrar: A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. D/B/A NAMESYSTEM.COM
   Whois Server: whois.namesystem.com
   Referral URL: http://www.NameSystem.com
   Name Server: NS1.VRX.NET
   Name Server: NS2.VRX.NET
   Updated Date: 09-apr-2002


Domain Name: dotpower.com

Registrant:
  A Technology Company, Inc.  jason@icmregistry.com
  23 McKayfield Road
  Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
  CA
  Phone: 416-485-3888
  FAX: 416-485-6195

Administrative Contact:
  Hendeles, Jason  jason@icmregistry.com
  A Technology Company, Inc.
  53 McKayfield Road
  Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
  CA
  Phone: 416-485-3888
  FAX: 416-485-6195

Technical Contact:
  Hendeles, Jason  jason@icmregistry.com
  A Technology Company, Inc.
  53 McKayfield Road
  Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
  CA
  Phone: 416-485-3888
  FAX: 416-485-6195

Billing Contact:
  Hendeles, Jason  jason@icmregistry.com
  A Technology Company, Inc.
  53 McKayfield Road
  Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
  CA
  Phone: 416-485-3888
  FAX: 416-485-6195

Record created: 1998-12-03 00:00:00
Record expires: 2006-12-02 00:00:00

Domain name servers:

  ns1.isdi.com     204.107.85.2
  ns2.isdi.com     204.107.85.100

* * * * * * * * * * *

So my question:

Should a Registrar like ATech submit a tiny list and try to get names for itself?

Is this conduct an indication of standards we can expect from ICMRegistry if it ever got a .XXX registry? Was Michael Palage aware how they set out to get adult.info? Does he condone the practice of Registrars using their "lists" in landrush situations to serve their own interests rather than the public's?

And why should the general public lose their fair chance to certain names, just because registrars choose to take advantage of their privilege and trusted positions?

Is this a fair and equal way to distribute the DNS?



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>