Re: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Open Letter to Mr Jeff Neuman from The Internet Challenge
- From: Eric Dierker <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us, Legal@Neulevel.Biz, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DEvans@doc.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, karl@CaveBear.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Is there really anyone on this list that is not certain that both of the
below wrongs occured? Write me I got some bridge in Brooklyn I would like
you to invest in.
If Vint is this out of touch it is really scary.
> One question that bears on this process is whether any interested party
> did not experience fair opportunity to register a name. That's not
> quite what you were asking but it has relevance to assessing sunrise
> processes. The second question is whether any of the registrars were,
> effectively, trading on their own accounts (that is, not registering
> names they intended to use themselves or on behalf of customers but
> intended hold and sell at a later time). I don't know whether the
> current registrar agreements with ICANN treat the specifics of your
> questions below, but I will try to find out.
> At 01:20 AM 4/15/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>Dear Jeff and Vint
>>I'd like to ask your advice on ICANN and Neulevel's policy with regard
>>to Registrars applying for names (particularly in queued Landrush
>>situations) on their own behalf. As you know, I have already alluded to
>>concerns I had over Signature Domains, and I look forward to some kind
>>of response - to the principles, if not to the personal details, of
>>I'd also like to draw to your attention - without making any
>>allegations - the case of 007names. In the recent .biz Group 2B names
>>release, 465 names were registered through them, with over half (258)
>>going to their client Vitty Inc.
>>These names were issued to Paul Chou, e-mail address domain@Vitty.com .
>>In the "About" section of Vitty.com there is more information about Mr
>>Chou. It notes that he founded a company called Webex.net (a registrar,
>>parent company of sinonet.com, no reference to vitty.com) with his
>>wife, Joyce Lin. Further whois searches found that the Admin, Billing
>>and Tech Contacts for 007names.com is Joyce Lin of Bridgewater, NJ.
>>007names.com is hosted by (surprise) webex.net on the same server as
>>vitty.com. Webex.net of Bridgewater, NJ comes up as non-existent in
>>the WHOIS server release 1.0, but in version 1.3 they show that
>>007Names, Inc. is their registrar.
>>My questions are these: are registrars allowed to apply for names in
>>landrush situations through their own Registrar company? Are the
>>families of Registrars allowed to apply for - say - the majority of
>>names submitted in a queue? Do a husband and wife constitute a single
>>entity? Does a Registrar have the right to exploit the advantage of
>>their own position to dominate a queue, in a way which might
>>disadvantage many other people?
>>I'm not making a personal observation on the actions of Vitty Inc or
>>007names. I'm curious about the facts behind their dealings. But my
>>approach to you is in order to get clarification of the rules (which
>>obviously impact on other consumers). I would also respectfully ask you
>>to investigate this specific case if you feel that any rules have been
>>broken and your other customers have been disadvantaged in breach of
>>If no rules have been broken, then probably no personal criticism is
>>appropriate, but in that scenario I would call into question the
>>processes that have been set up between ICANN, the Registry and its
>>registrars, as there seem to me to be inadequate safeguards for the
>>majority of ordinary customers, and too much scope for what I would
>>describe as "insider dealing" in the distribution of what should be
>>made publicly available to everybody on fair and level terms.
>>Many thanks for your attention.
> 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
Reality in a Digital World
The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system. Thank you!
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