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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard and all former DNSO GA member and all interested
stakeholders/users,

  Most or what you wrote below Richard is very accurate.  However
repeating it over and over again on this now defunct forum to ICANN,
will not likely have any impact or influence of any significance.
As a citizen of the United Kingdom you need to take you well
stated concerns directly to your ambassador to the USG's office
for redress at any and every opportunity.  The ICANN BoD
and staff are not listening to anyone on this forum any longer.

  You also have two other possible and perhaps effective
options.
1.) Build up a significant number of stakeholders/users, and
form an organization that can and will raise money to apply
serious pressure to ICANN and DOC/NTIA.

2.) File a legal action that you feel very confident in.
    ( This also will require significant funding )

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    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=02/12/24/14491
> &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&;
> ode=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
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801