[ga] Re: was Web address... now Ken Stubbs and the registries

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ken

I was delighted to get the helpful response from you about the new web
address of the [ga] list. Many thanks.

In fact, it was great to hear from you, because I wondered if you (or other
subscribers) could help me out with some things I am researching?

Were you Chairman of the Names Council of the DNSO at the time that Afilias
applied to operate the NewTLDs?

Was any action taken by ICANN to avoid any conflict of interest that might
be perceived to exist, between your deep involvement in ICANN and your deep
involvement in Afilias (as a Board Member)?

Please understand that my questions are not personal or anything. I'm just
curious to understand how you managed to "distance" yourself from the
process of review carried out by ICANN staff, and rubber-stamped by the
ICANN Board. Because you seemed historically such an integral part of the
ICANN project, that (you'll understand what I mean) objective outsiders
might feel you were like an "Insider" whose application was dealt with...
well... generously.

I've also been longing to get some kind of response from you or Hal about
the issue of possible conflict of interest, when a Registry is operated by a
cartel of Registrars.

Having been granted the .info Registry by your friends at ICANN, there were
further issues that caused concern once the Registry started operating.

To cite one instance: you and Hal Lubsen have a historically very close
business relationship, both having directorships (and financial holdings?)
at iDomains and DomainBank (part of the Afilias cartel but also a Registrar
business). You also both held positions of influence at Afilias : I believe
you, Ken, were a Director; and Hal was CEO (later Director?)...

There was (to cite just one example) the issue of the Lorenz .info
applications, where DomainBank charged $15000 to submit 93 applications in
the .info Sunrise, in clear breach of the Registry-Registrar Agreement. The
rules stated clearly that a Registrar was not permitted to submit
applications without mandatory data in 4 Trademark datafields - name of TM,
date of TM, country of TM, number of TM.

Lorenz was charged $15000 by your company DomainBank, even though the data
fields read:
name of TM: none
date of TM: none
country of TM: none
number of TM: none
(or at least, none in 3 of the 4 datafields)

This meant that the hapless Lorenz was being sold a service and commodity
which was, from the outset, worthless.

When he realised this, he requested (via over 20 e-mails) that the
applications be deleted (so that Landrush customers could get the names
instead).

What I find strange is that

(a) DomainBank and Afilias took the relevant money, even though the
applications were in breach of the Agreement, and were therefore wholly
ineligible. Why did the Registry and Registrar take the money, when it
involved breaking their own rules, and giving Lorenz nothing in return?

(b) Why, when Lorenz asked for the names to be returned to the pool for
other consumers, was this request refused, and the money retained by the
parties who had broken the rules (bearing in mind that Lorenz himself could
not submit these 93 names, it had to be consciously done by DomainBank and
received by Afilias)?

(c) Why, when these wholly ineligible names were submitted by DomainBank
(part of Afilias Cartel), did Afilias ignore their own rules, and go ahead
and register the names in contravention of their own clear rules?

To the outsider, it might appear that serious conflicts of interest were
involved : that there was a system where the initial granting of the
Registry was made to parties deeply involved 'inside' ICANN; where it was in
the mutual financial interests of both Afilias the registry and DomainBank
the registrar to sideline their own rules if money could be taken from a
sucker for a non-existent product; and where the 'watchdog' ICANN then
appeared to turn a blind eye, and left its friends and contacts to go ahead
without intervention.

I'm really glad for your helpful response over the [ga]list URL, Ken, but
I'd be far more grateful for your response to some of these issues, as an
honest, up-front man.

It seems extraordinary to me that ICANN received over $2million in
application fees from over 40 applicants to run the New TLD Registries -
where did all that money go to, and what was it spent on?

And that after that costly process, the decision certainly went in your
favour - with or without conflicts of interest.

And that the Afilias cartel of Registrars then presided over a fiasco,
involving fraud, rule-breaking, and quick-money-making by Registrars who
variously: submitted fake TM numbers for over 200 names for themselves (one
company); told its customers to apply for Sunrise without TMs, and then put
in the fake numbers themselves (the customers didn't, the registrar did);
applied for individual names with fake TMs (in the name of specific Board
members); accepted $500,000 from one customer to submit 4981 ineligible
applications (registrar which was part of the Afilias cartel)... I could go
on to cite the bizarre Registrar Reserved names which the Afilias cartel
grabbed before the public; and many other matters of grave concern.

And that neither the Registry nor the registrars involved were willing to
respond to specific concerns. And that the ICANN-Registrar Liaison Dan
Halloran has failed to even acknowledge correspondence about these matters
(in 425 days). And that all the aforementioned Registrars continue to do
business to this day. Not one has lost accredited status.

In this context, Ken, please understand that I find a discrepancy between
your willingness to respond (helpfully) to an enquiry about a web address,
and the seeming "wall of silence" which has been used to avoid serious
dialogue on specific points of concern.

Where is the self-evaluation of the registries over these matters? Where are
the mandatory Registry Evaluation Reports, required under Appendix U of the
ICANN-Registry Agreement? Have they been submitted *in accordance with the
terms and conditions*? If so, then ICANN needs to explain why they have been
withheld.

I wish you well, Ken, and I recognise your right to make money and do
business.

However, we are talking about the open and fair administration of a
worldwide resource.

At the very least, what the internet public should expect is openness and
responsiveness, and a willingness to engage in dialogue where there are
serious concerns (and there are).

Ken, possibly unfairly, I have always regarded you as very much an "Insider"
of the ICANN project. You also seem to have been very much an "insider" of
the Afilias project. I presume you were an "insider" at DomainBank too.

Could you, or failing that, other subscribers to this [ga] list indicate
whether you feel any conflicts of interests existed at any stage in this DNS
feeding-chain?

And could the ICANN Board explain the extraordinary lack of responsiveness,
the "wall of silence", which has existed in the face of reasonable and
serious concerns from reasonable and serious people.

Stuart Lynn told us on this list *a year ago* that ICANN "had not yet had
time to FTP the Registry Evaluation reports to the website"... the reports
were already over 6 months overdue then, now 18 months. My 12-year-old
daughter could have done it in 30 minutes.

Dan Halloran received a detailed letter of concerns 425 days ago, re-sent
several times, and since posted to this list and the relevant ICANN forum
and ICANNWatch. I have had no acknowledgement.

When Paul Twomey took over, talking about "the need for responsiveness" I
thought: 'Great!' I asked him if he could kindly chase up the concerns I had
raised, and get Dan or someone to respond. It's over 45 days, and Paul has
followed Dan's precedent. He hasn't even acknowledged my letter.
Responsiveness?

A "Wall of Silence".

Anyway, I wonder if there's anyone reading this list who would care to
express a view on why these matters seem to have been avoided, and whether
there were indeed any grounds for concern over the allocation of Registries
and the way these Registries were launched?

It's all very well being able to find the [ga]list website... thanks for
that Ken ... but the real issue, is whether the website is openly used by
ICANN directors, ICANN officers, ICANN participants, to engage in *real*
dialogue and critical discussion.

I look forward to your views. There is nothing personal in wanting openness
in the way decisions are made, policies formulated, agreements implemented.

I have nothing personal with regard to you, Ken. I simply ask questions.

Kind regards,


Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Web address of [ga] list please


> TRY
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/
>
> regards
>
> ken stubbs