[ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Afilias - DomainBank - Hal Lubsen - ICANN -indefensible?
- To: General Assembly of the DNSO <email@example.com>
- Subject: [ga] Re: [GTLD Registries List] Afilias - DomainBank - Hal Lubsen - ICANN -indefensible?
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:57:16 -0800
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <DPEOJECBMOLLLJOFDNDPCEPIDEAA.email@example.com> <000801c2bb32$99ace900$2859fc3e@r6yll>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Richard, Joanna and all,
Richard, perhaps you should be passing this information along directly
to the necessary folks at DOC/NTIA for their attention. I would suggest
that you do so separately. I agree with you regarding Dan's behavior.
He has been particularly discouraging towards registrants in general,
as has Marilyn Cade. We as stakeholders/registrants can expect this
attitude to continue, but should not except it as reasonable.
Keep up your fine work Richard!
Richard Henderson wrote:
> Hi Joanna
> Happy New Year. The consequence of these ineligible applications /
> registrations (which were NOT allowed according to the
> Registry-Registrar Agreement, Appendix E) was that all the people all
> over the world who had legitimately applied and/or paid for the right
> to participate in the Landrush for these names lost out for no good
> reason except that DomainBank elected to breach the Registry rules.
> This was itself a substantial loss for some people (and yes, I
> personally lost out in relation to at least one of Lorenz's names).
> Put in the bigger context, you have to understand that some people
> lost $30000 + because of the Sunrise fiasco. They never expected to
> get ALL the names they applied for in Landrush, but they had a right
> to expect that Registrars and Registry would at least adhere to the
> Agreements themselves.
> In this specific case, William Lorenz of Strategic Domains appears to
> me to have been scammed. He was charged $15000 for a product that
> DomainBank must have known the Rules disallowed, and which could
> therefore never materialise.
> But the most serious harm, in my opinion, was the abuse of process by
> Registrar and Registry right at the heart of the .info set up.
> DomainBank charged $15000 to get false and ineligible applications
> registered. Registrars simply weren't allowed to apply for names
> without the mandatory TM data in four specified fields.
> Afilias went ahead and registered these 93 names (presumably also for
> a profit) even though the applications breached the rules of their own
> The fact that Hal Lubsen had a long-term association with DomainBank,
> as well as being CEO of Afilias, makes the "rip-off" (as I perceive
> it) even more unpalatable.
> To me it is evidence that consumers were let down because (a) the
> Agreements themselves were flawed (b) the Agreements were broken (c)
> the Agreements were not enforced.
> Note also, that when Lorenz was made conscious of the harm that
> Landrush customers would suffer, he immediately requested that these
> registrations should be cancelled and made available in time for the
> bona fide Landrush applicants. He contacted Afilias and DomainBank a
> total of 23 times (I have the e-mails) pleading for them to cancel the
> names. These requests were not met. This was notwithstanding the fact
> that the ICANN-Registry Agreement empowered Afilias to carry out such
> The Lorenz case was just one case among many involving Afilias
> executives and staff and registrars belonging to the Afilias cartel. I
> encourage you to refer to the long thread of 143 posts on the Jeff
> Davies story at ICANNWatch to see the scope and extent of what
> There were many cases of registrar and registry misconduct. For over
> 250 days Dan Halloran has hidden away and refused to respond on any of
> these or on the role of ICANN in relationship to its own Agreements,
> its accreditation of registrars, and its duty to oversee the fair
> distribution of the DNS to the general public.
> I would like to see a detailed investigation of these serious
> I also await the Registry Evaluation Reports which Afilias were
> obliged to submit under Appendix U of their ICANN-Registry Agreement.
> These Registry Reports should have provided vital data for the NewTLD
> Evaluation Process. Instead, they have never materialised. The
> Appendix U stated clearly that nearly all of these report details
> could be published by ICANN. The Reports were due in mostly 6 months
> ago, and in some cases 9 months ago.
> I have repeatedly asked Stuart Lynn to publish these Registry Reports.
> I asked him in May. I asked him in the Summer. I asked him in the
> Autumn. It is now 2003.
> He says, "ICANN has been busy and hasn't had time to put them online."
> Sorry, but copy-paste-FTP, and they could be up in half an hour or
> less. My 12 year old daughter runs her own website - she'll do it for
> you if you like!
> But more seriously: how can the various ICANN constituencies seriously
> engage in an informed participation, if central data is withheld? And
> isn't the Evaluation of the NewTLDs an important matter?
> There has been no attempt to defend or account for the abuse of
> process, and failure of process, that accompanied the .info roll-out.
> No accountability. No recognition that people suffered loss. No
> apology. Not even a response to many of these concerns (example: over
> 250 days since some of these concerns were expressed to Dan Halloran
> requesting a response and action. Outcome: total silence. Not even the
> courtesy of an acknowledgement, even when the mail was posted on
> IcannWatch, posted on the GA list, and re-posted to him several
> In the context of such lack of responsiveness and accountability, it
> is small wonder that many people are dismayed that the ICANN Board has
> chosen to EXPEL the democratically-elected representatives of the At
> Large (User) community from the Board Room.
> Many questions are still unanswered.
> Richard Henderson
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joanna Lane
> To: Richard Henderson ; email@example.com
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:55 AM
> Subject: RE: [GTLD Registries List] Afilias - DomainBank - Hal
> Lubsen - ICANN -indefensible?
> Have you suffered actual hardship as a direct result of losing one
> of these 93 names? If not, do you know anyone who applied for them and
> did not get them? How do you know these domain names have any value?
> Could it be that William Lorenz was simply scammed?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Richard Henderson
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [GTLD Registries List] Afilias - DomainBank - Hal Lubsen -
> ICANN - indefensible?
> I'm still awaiting an explanation of why Hal Lubsen (CEO Afilias)
> could justify the registrations granted for DomainBank (long term
> association with Hal Lubsen) in the case of 93 .info Sunrise
> applications for Strategic Domains (aka William Lorenz) where
> DomainBank breached the Registry-Registrar rules (Appendix E)
> requiring proper submission in the 4 mandatory data fields: Trademark
> name. Trademark Number. Trademark Date. Trademark Country.
> DomainBank charged Lorenz $15000 to submit 93 ineligible
> applications with zero data in these mandatory Trademark datafields.
> Afilias granted the registrations, even though the Registry
> Agreement Rules had been broken.
> The applications were ineligible, and yet Afilias granted them,
> and DomainBank charged Lorenz $15000 for a product which could not
> materialise because DomainBank were not at liberty to apply for it.
> Would ANYONE in the Registry community, or the ICANN community,
> explain and defend this breach of rules please?
> It was just one, among a collection of many, breaches of the
> Agreement on the basis of which consumers did business.
> I take the overwhelming silence on this matter as (effectively) an
> admission of guilt.
> Richard Henderson
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html