[registrars] FW: In defence of Directi
Title: Message on
behalf of richard henderson
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 5:59 AM To: bhavin.t@directi.com Subject: In defence of Directi Bhavin
I can't post to the Registrars mailing list, but I
saw Nicolaj's mail which referred to the poorly-informed article at
IcannWatch.
I would be very happy, if you so chose, to have the
following message forwarded to the Registrars Mailing List:
"My name is Richard Henderson
I am on the executive of IcannAtLarge and I also
run the watchdog website Internet Challenge. I am fairly well known for my close
analysis of registrar conduct during the launch of the New TLDs. I have not
spared criticism where it was appropriate, and I have called to the attention of
Dan Halloran the conduct of Yesnic, Tucows, DomainBank, Signature Domains and
others - as well as warning in advance that 25% of names would prove false in
the .info Sunrise. I also drew attention to the registrar abuses that
occurred in .biz2B and warned that they would recur in .info LR2, which they
did. So I do not try to protect registrars fro fair criticism.
However, I believe the IcannWatch article to which
Nicolaj Nyholm referred was poorly-informed and inaccurate. I monitored the
conduct of Directi closely through the lead up and follow through to LR2, and it
is simply not true that Directi bought those names for warehousing or continued
the bidding after the registration of the names.
On the contrary, the bidding process for all
registrants proceeded fairly and openly, right up to the close of bidding, which
was in advance of registrations. Subsequent to the close of the process I have
firm evidence that those people who made the highest bids were able to pay for
their new registrations just, Nicolaj, as your customers were able to pay for
registrations that Ascio achieved.
The reference to bidding in the WHOIS was submitted
in advance, at a stage when Bhavin Turakhia was exploring the concept of a
continuing bidding process after the issue of the Whois. However, after open and
reasoned dialogue with Internet Users in the Public Forum, he chose not to go
down that path, and that was certainly the right decision (because it could have
laid him open to the charge of warehousing, if only for a few
days).
Overall, my close analysis of Directi is that they
have honoured their promises to their registrants and I think that it was an
error to refer to the IcannWatch article, which did not represent the facts and
full information.
Incidentally, Nicolaj, it hardly seems fitting for
a representative of Speednames to make criticisms about others in the .info
names release, when Ascio/Speednames were responsible for taking a large sum of
money in the .info Sunrise fiasco to sponsor the 4981 registrations made with
fake data for Konrad Plankenstein.
No other registrar was so deeply involved in the
processing of fake Trademark details. Did it not occur to Speednames that 4981
names for the same person was possibly, just, stretching credibility too far
(particularly as most of the Trademarks were identically dated
1899!)?
Surely Speednames were not driven by money
regardless by the integrity of the process and the best interests of the
Internet Public. You talk about damaging the reputation of other registrars. The
Plankenstein disgrace was hugely damaging for the reputation and good name of
other registrars.
Without companies like Ascio/Speednames - all to
eager to take the money regardless - who knows? Maybe we wouldn't even have need
a .info LR2! "
|