<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?
Title: Help
OK - thanks for the reply which people can read as
they wish.
As a former Prison Governor, I'm well aware of the
unfairness in life, though I had a responsibility to maintain as much fairness
as possible, within the powers granted me. Naturally I didn't always get things
right. You say: "I believe that registries and registrars should be allowed to
allocate names in any manner which does not violate the law."
I take the view that ICANN has been instructed to
ensure the fair distribution of the DNS. Simply "not breaking the law" does not
ensure that. ICANN has a responsibility invested in it by DoC to develop
Agreements which ensure name allocation is as fair a way as possible. One such
step would be to remove the incentive to registrars to submit short lists in
landrush situations. A commonsense solution would be to require each registrar
to submit at least 1000 applications in a landrush (any number of these
could be BLANK applications). This would then mean that the registrar who only
submitted 10 applications for themselves would have no more chance than the
registrar who opened their list to the general public and submitted 1000
applications for them. Nearly everyone would then have the same
chance.
It would level out the playingfield, and prevent
this particular kind of insider "gaming" of the system.
Look at the .biz2B and Signature Domains. Their
only registrations in that particular landrush were 9 registrations for their
own partner, Joshua Blacker. This can be seen in the Whois. It is also on my
database of all the .biz2B registrations. And I phoned Joshua Blacker and spoke
to him and he admitted all this. I have this "on record". It appears to me that
Mr Hendeles played the same game in .info LR2. Is this "the fair distribution of
the DNS"?
Why should the general public be "gamed" by
queue-jumping registrars who obstruct the fair distribution of the
DNS?
It is within ICANN's power - through the Agreements
it develops - to pre-empt this kind of insider benefit. I take the view that
ICANN, Registries, and Registrars, should all have a primary commitment to the
general public who they serve. Most registrars do. They want to promote a
culture of fairness. But I believe you have been associated with people who have
failed the system and taken advantage of ICANN's weak and unenforced
Agreements.
You are well aware (from your "inside" view of
Afilias) that entities within Afilias were closely associated with the abuse of
process in the .info names release and yet you seem to support the laissez-faire
"anything goes" attitude. If you'd care to
defend Afilias, I'd be delighted to take you on head to head in this public
forum.
However, I have already noted (as have others) that
neither ICANN, nor Hal Lubsen, nor yourself have had the openness or courage to
discuss the very specific details of how Agreements and rules were broken in
that case. The policy has been to "say nothing" and to avoid discussing serious
concerns and examples of abuse of process.
It is not good enough to say "life is unfair"
therefore let people do what they want and "tough" on those who don't like
it.
I do not agree at all that Registries and
registrars should have a free hand in how they allocate names. Afilias knew in
advance of LR2 that the same "unfair" short lists that occurred in .biz2B
would recur in their second landrush... but they took the view you seem to
me to be supporting... that registrars should be able to game the system if
they chose. As you well know, this industry lacks a key Code of
Conduct and depends on registrars own sense of fairness or lack of
it.
That is wholly inadequate, in terms of
protecting the consumer and serving the consumer. In the absence of such a
Code, ICANN should write in much clearer constraints in their
Agreements. ICANN should also take sanctions (such as removal of accreditation)
against entities that break the rules.
One more thing : there is an appalling lack of
openness and responsiveness on the part of ICANN (and indeed, some of the
Registries). That has to change too. Do you want a rogue industry or an
equitable one? I appreciate the fact that
you responded to my post, and responded in a human way. But many many questions
remain unanswered and both ICANN and Afilias have shown absolutely NO intention
of responding to them at all. They prefer to hide and suppress open and detailed
dialogue.
You say: "I believe that registries and registrars
should be allowed to allocate names in any manner which does not violate the
law."
I regard that as abdication of
responsibility.
I've been with my son today too (watching him play
two games of football in the pouring rain). Hope you enjoyed your football as
much as I enjoyed mine.
Richard H
PS: To avoid any confusion of meaning, I have
re-drafted one sentence in my previous letter.
Where I wrote: "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..." I will clarify this loosely-phrased remark as
follows: "Registrar R217 was, I believe, ATech / A Technology Company,
Inc. Michael Palage of Afilias has had close connections with this company.
I suspect that ATech's list was closed to the public so that its own owners
could benefit." I was not inferring that you were involved in any list
submissions for ATech, Michael, but I was asking you to clarify if you WERE.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:17
PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Would Michael Palage
care to answer this one?
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.
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
>>>
|