[ga] the .info "abomination" - questions still unanswered

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

HelpWhen the Afilias Director Robert Connelly resigned from the Afilias Board in protest at what he described as the .info "abomination" and abandonment of consumer interests, few people knew the pervasive extent to which the ICANN-Registry and Registry-Registrar Agreements had been abused and the NewTLD process compromised.

Fraud was carried out by registrars stll accredited to this day by ICANN.

Members of the Afilias cartel broke their own rules to secure profit or obtain domain names they wanted before the public could get them. The DNS "Supply Industry" in serious incidents committed fraud, brazenly exploited their privilege, to warehouse valuable names before the general public, and ignored clauses of the ICANN-instituted Registry-Registrar Agreements.

As well as the case of DomainBank and the ineligible submissions they made to Afilias (for $15000) there were many other cases of registrar and registry misconduct. Another member of the Afilias cartel made over $500,000 submitting ineligible applications for a single customer. For over 500 days Dan Halloran has hidden away and refused to respond on any of these matters which I put to him; 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.

For a detailed exposee of some of the matters of great concern (or as an introduction to the scope and scale of the abuse by some registrars and Afilias Board members in the .info roll-out) go to:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/24/144912&mode=thread&threshold=-1

I would like to see a detailed investigation of these serious allegations.

Furthermore, I would like to see the detailed agenda for the much-vaunted but almost invisible New TLDs Evaluation Process.

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 16 months ago, and in some cases 19 months ago.

I 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. When Paul Twomey took over I continued to ask him. It is now the Autumn of 2003.

Stuart Lynn said, "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? Shouldn't there be an interface, by means of which all constituencies can contribute, stage by stage, as a professional evaluation works through a detailed agenda?

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 500 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 times.)

I extended this matter to Paul Twomey (who made a much-vaunted stance on *responsiveness* when reporting to his USG overseers). Over 130 days later, I have had no *response* !!!

The questions and concerns, which can be plainly seen at:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/24/144912&mode=thread&threshold=-1
are serious, worrying and should in no way be swept under the carpet. But ICANN has steadfastly ignored fair and serious questions put to it, choosing to avoid any response, and presumably hoping annoying people asking difficult questions will just go away.

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