Re: [ga] Fascinating bust up on the Registrars Mailing List

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

Thank you for your reply.

regards,

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Lindsay <richard@gmo.jp>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Fascinating bust up on the Registrars Mailing List


> Hello Richard (Henderson)
>
> I almost didn't reply, but on second thought, I didn't
> want my silence to indicate assent, or a lack of respect.
> I don't know you personally, nor have I met Jefsey in
> person, and I have no particular issue with you.  If I
> sounded sarcastic and a little frustrated, mea culpa, but
> your response demonstrates something for me.  But anyway,
> it is Sunday night, and I am going to sleep soon, so to
> summarize:
>
> 1.  My original point was simply that the "bust up" on
> the registrars mailing list was in my very humble opinion
> exaggerated to the point such that the author of one of the
> quoted emails was taken completely out of context.  There
> was even confusion amongst the registrars, so I can understand.
>
> 2.  The beauty (in my view) of the Afilias model, is that
> although the company is owned by 18 registrars, the shareholder
> registrars have no advantage over non-shareholder registrars.  In
> addition, even the board of directors is not privy to operational
> issues that could potentially give them any information that
> might give them advantage over any other registrar.   So
> although I am the chairman of the board, I have no further
> insight into your particular questions, any more than any
> other registrar that offers .info domains.
>
> 2.a.  I will give you this - in my view there are registrars
> who's business practices challenge what I think ICANN envisioned
> when it established the registrar test-bed, and the supporting
> documents.  However, overall registrar accreditation is dictated
> by ICANN, not the registries.  I do believe that ICANN should
> enforce violations of the registrar accreditation contracts,
> but hey, we don't live in a perfect world...  I understand
> why we are where we are.
>
> 3.  In defense of my sarcasm (with regards to the GA list) I
> admit that it is not constructive, and if anyone wants an
> apology, I will apologize (hey, I am sorry.)  However, I do
> not apologize for the root of this sarcasm which comes from
> frustration.  The vast majority of people (not nameless email
> addresses) that I have worked with throughout the ICANN process
> have ceased to participate in this forum, in my opinion again,
> because the endless search for scandal and "fiendish plotting"
> leads to a witch hunt mentality that frankly is just not
> worth putting up with.  I believe that there are many voices
> (indeed the vast majority) that are quelled because they don't
> want to be bullied by the vocal minority.
>
> Anyway, as I said, it is Sunday night (in Japan) so as
> we say here "oyasuminasai"  (good night, if you are curious.)
>
> Regards,
> Richard (Lindsay)
>
>
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard (Lindsay)
> >
> > If you're Chairman of Afilias, perhaps you'd like to be as open and
vocal
> > about why Registrar members of the Afilias cartel, represented on your
> > Board, abused your own process in the .info roll-out?
> >
> > No-one on the Afilias Board has ever defended the *detail* of that
abuse.
> > Are you willing to enter into a dialogue here on this list over specific
> > detailed allegations, concerns and issues which have been repeatedly
raised,
> > and which Afilias and its associate registrars have refused to answer?
> >
> > Come on, Richard Lindsay, engage in dialogue!
> >
> > Otherwise, little wonder people are concerned about the demonstrable
> > conflict of interest that can arise when registrars and registry are in
> > cahoots!
> >
> > To start with, why did Afilias register the 93 Sunrise domains of
William
> > Lorenz, even though they had "zero" data in the 4 mandatory Trademark
> > fields? Names were ineligible for registration if they didn't have data
in
> > those TM fields (Appendix E of the Registry-Registrar agreement).
> >
> > And why did Afilias shareholders DomainBank (with representative on the
> > Afilias Board) submit those ineligible names for registration, in breach
of
> > the Agreement, only to have them miraculously accepted for registration
by
> > Afilias?
> >
> > And why, when Lorenz requested Afilias and DomainBank *over 20 times* to
> > delete those ineligible names in time for release to legitimate Landrush
> > customers, did Afilias refuse (even though they had powers in the
Agreement
> > to do so, and knew the names were wholly ineligible)?
> >
> > And why are DomainBank (represented on the Afilias Board) still pursuing
> > Lorenz for completion of the payment of $15000 for a product they knew
all
> > along was ineligible, and which they could *never* provide?
> >
> > I could of course ask about other Directors who abused the process, but
> > let's START with this case...
> >
> > You insult participants of this mailing list, but I dare you to enter
into
> > detailed dialogue about these unanswered concerns.
> >
> > No conflict of interest in Afilias Directors running both Registry and
> > Registrars?
> >
> > It is, in the light of demonstrable abuse, at least an issue worth
> > discussing.
> >
> > But will you discuss the real details? If you won't, why should we take
> > *YOU* seriously?
> >
> > yours,
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
>
>
> --
> _/_/_/Global Media Online Inc.
> _/_/_/Chief Technical Officer
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
> _/_/_/Shibuya Cerulean Tower
> _/_/_/26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo (150-8512) Japan
> _/_/_/TEL (Reception):  81-3-5456-2687
> _/_/_/TEL (Direct):  81-3-5456-2703
> _/_/_/TEL (Cellular):  81-90-2534-0040
> _/_/_/FACSIMILE:  81-3-5456-2740
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html