Re: [ga] Would Michael Palage or Vint Cerf care to answer these ones?
Title: Help A few questions:
1. When DoC commissioned ICANN to administer the
DNS, they stipulated that the DNS must be distributed fairly. Does that
mean that all domain names should be made available to all people on equal
terms? And are there examples of unfair distribution as a result of ICANN's
policies, agreements, or failure to implement agreements?
2. When ICANN appointed Afilias as Registry
operator for the .info namespace, was there potential for conflict of interest,
as Afilias was a cartel of registrars, and therefore might gain advantage from
controlling both the Registry and the Registrar end of the domain supply? Are
there any examples of this conflict of interest, or of advantage being gained by
Registrars in the cartel, as a result of the policies and practices of the
Registry?
3. Why did Afilias implement a Sunrise policy that
was so open to abuse, and was this policy and rules abused by people in Afilias
or its cartel of registrars?
4. Since Afilias were already aware of the problem
with Sunrise by August 7th 2001 (if not before) why did they decide to continue
allowing registrations which were clearly invalid?
5. What specifically were the reasons for ignoring
the Domebase Solution which would have protected the interests of all
parties?
6. Why did Afilias decline to delete ineligible
registrations before LR1, even when the registrants themselves requested such
deletions, both directly and via their registrars?
7. Why did at least 2 Afilias Directors make
ineligible registrations with fake TM details in the Sunrise?
8. Why did DomainBank, part of the Afilias cartel
and closely linked to Afilias CEO Hal Lubsen, submit a large number of
applications with zero data in the 4 mandatory TM fields, which was clearly
forbidden in Appendix E of the Agreement?
9. Why did DomainBank charge over $15000 for a
product they knew, under the terms of their own Agreement, they could not
supply?
10. Why did Afilias (CEO: Hal Lubsen) go ahead and
register these names for DomainBank, even though they were wholly ineligible,
and in breach of Afilias's own rules? How can Afilias justify this abuse of
process?
11. Is it true that one of the cartel members of
Afilias (with a seat on the Afilias Board at the time) charged $500,000 to
submit 4981 fake Sunrise names, with 1899-dated trademarks, and that Afilias
declined to delete these names when the public heard about this, even after an
admission of guilt from the registrant, and a request for deletion from the
Registrar?
12. Is it true that both the .biz2B and the .info
LR2 landrushes were "gamed" by insiders - both independent registrars and
registrars in the Afilias cartel? Is it true that some registrars only applied
for names for themselves and, by submitting very short lists without
applications from the public, queue-jumped the round-robin system for their own
benefit? Was this a "fair" way to distribute the DNS? Was it fair to the public
at large?
13. Is it true that when this "gaming" of the
process came to light after the .biz2B landrush, both Afilias AND Icann were
asked to take action to prevent it happening again in LR2? Is it true that the
Icann-Registrar liaison Dan Halloran was repeatedly asked to respond to these
concerns about unfair distribution of the DNS? Is it true that 260 days later he
has not even acknowledged these messages?
14. Is it true that after Afilias were warned about
short queues, and took no action, their Director Moshe Fogel gained domains.info
by applying for it through a very short list from his own Registrar company
(also part of the cartel?)?
15. Is it true that Hal Lubsen the Afilias CEO
reserved domain.info for his registrar company? Why did DomainBank deserve this
desired name more than anyone else in the world? Was this fair distribution of
the DNS, or just an example of a system which favoured certain
people?
16. Is it true that Hal Lubsen has never defended
the actions of either Afilias or DomainBank, or responded in any way to the
detail of these serious concerns?
17. Is it true that DoC KNEW about all these
concerns, but renewed ICANN's mandated without reference to them?
18. Is it true that ICANN, in an effort to
eliminate critical elements within its own organisation, ignored the advice of
the ALSC they commissioned, that proposed significant participation on the ICANN
Board by elected representatives of ordinary Internet Users?
19. Is it true that ICANN subsequently decided to
EXPEL those elected representatives who were already on the ICANN
Board?
20. Is it true that, after the General Assembly of
ICANN voted critically for a re-bid for ICANN's contract with DoC, it was
announced that the individual membership of the GA would be phased
out?
Lastly (though I have omitted probably 100 other
questions)...
21. Is it REALLY true that ICANN has fulfilled its
mandate to ensure the fair distribution of the DNS?
* * * * * * * * * * *
kind regards
Richard Henderson
|