ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: gTLD Evaluation

  • To: "Miriam Sapiro" <msapiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: gTLD Evaluation
  • From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:22:30 -0000
  • Cc: <sbacholl@xxxxxxxxxx>, <msapiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • References: <00ae01c3eb9b$e0f4be60$9c723bd0@cable.rcn.com> <000c01c3ed0a$4331d120$5155fc3e@r6yll> <000101c3f294$22ac3aa0$9c723bd0@cable.rcn.com> <002b01c3f8f2$2cfa96a0$1158fc3e@r6yll> <000701c3fa8f$4dc613c0$9c723bd0@cable.rcn.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sebastien, Miriam,

*****submission15 from RSHenderson to gTLD Evaluation Team*****

I have sent Miriam details of the prices charged by various registrars during info launch, focussing in particular on the pre-registration process.

In this supplementary e-mail I would like to look at the pre-registrations I made through DomainBank. As you will know, Hal Lubsen has for many years been one of the lead figures in DomainBank, and DomainBank was a central registrar in the Afilias cartel. Indeed, in their advertising during the build up to the .info launch, Afilias urged customers to use them because of their strong involvement in Afilias.

And yet, having sold me a pre-registration for a domain name, they subsequently agreed to submit the same name with ineligible data in the Sunrise phase for William Lorenz of Strategic Domains (along with over 90 other domain names). These Sunrise names notoriously had "NONE" in the mandatory trademark datafields and, indeed, Lorenz himself asked over 20 times in e-mails for these Sunrise applications to be cancelled, but he was refused. Domainbank charged Lorenz $15000 for these Sunrise names, which (a) DomainBank sponsored in clear breach of the Registry-Registrar rules (b) Afilias registered, even though they were directly told they were ineligible, and could see that they were.

As Hal Lubsen was also CEO of Afilias at the same time, you will understand that I (and customers like myself for any of the 90+ names involved, applying through scores of registrars) would feel understandably aggrieved at the corruption of the process. Although DomainBank (after widespread criticism) refunded the pre-registration money, many other registrars did not, and therefore people sustained a loss as a result of DomainBank's conscious breach of the rules and Afilias's failure to uphold its process.

I complained to both Afilias and ICANN about this and did not even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement to my mail. The issue was only one of many issues involved with the chaotic .info launch, but it was of particular interest as a demonstration of the way the cartel members themselves, and the Afilias CEO in particular, appeared to be associated with the corruption of their own processes.

Further analysing the 30 domain names I pre-registered through DomainBank, I find that only 6 out of the 30 names were actually available in Landrush as 24 had been 'reserved' in Sunrise, 16 of them with what turned out to be 'faked' or non-existant Trademark details - these 16 were challenged and re-sold in the Landrush 2 the next year.

If my statistics are typical, it would suggest that around half the pre-registrations that people made were in fact invalidated by the collapse of the Sunrise process and the trademark fakes (or, the abuse of the process by registrars like DomainBank).

A closer look shows other anomalies.

One of the 30 names I pre-registered with DomainBank was whisky.info : I had a legitimate interest in this domain because I am the published author on a book about whisky. I find it reprehensible that I lost the chance to acquire this domain name because Afilias registered it (in breach of its own rules and conditions) with the ineligible Trademark date 2040 - 01 - 02 (the rules stated clearly that only TMs prior to Oct 2000 would be accepted); Trademark Name: "UNKNOWN"; Trademark Number "0" ... in other words, there was no supporting Trademark data.

And yet, if you check the current WHOIS for whisky.info you will see that this name is still registered to the original registrant John Hubbard (who was challenged on all these other Sunrise names:  
John Hubbard      assessments.info  John Hubbard      b2b.info  John Hubbard      blind.info  John Hubbard      blindness.info  John Hubbard      braille.info  John Hubbard      bromley.info  John Hubbard      cheese.info  John Hubbard      cruises.info  John Hubbard      disabled.info  John Hubbard      electricity.info  John Hubbard      ergonomic.info  John Hubbard      gatwick.info  John Hubbard      genealogy.info  John Hubbard      gin.info  John Hubbard      her.info  John Hubbard      his.info  John Hubbard      nba.info  John Hubbard      otford.info  John Hubbard      port.info  John Hubbard      roadrunner.info  John Hubbard      sailing.info  John Hubbard      sevenoaks.info  John Hubbard      spacetravel.info  John Hubbard      stansted.info  John Hubbard      tabletennis.info  John Hubbard      taxi.info  John Hubbard      tonbridge.info  John Hubbard      tunbridgewells.info  John Hubbard      uktravel.info John Hubbard    visuallyimpaired.info)

Why has Afilias allowed a Sunrise name with zero trademark rights and visibly ineligible data to go unchallenged and not even altered for over 31 months? If ICANN has a responsibility for giving the public access to the DNS, then why are members of the public like myself deprived use of a valid domain name, while a fake registration which was originally and visibly against the rules is still going unchallenged for approaching 3 years?

Another domain name I pre-registered with DomainBank was iceland.info : take a look at the current unaltered Trademark data for this domain. Along with over 100 other Sunrise applications by the same registrar, the trademark number is filed as "eg 12345" which cannot be correct. Why, 31 months later, is this visibly insufficiewnt data still part of the WHOIS?

The Lorenz case in particular concerns me, particularly in the context of other Afilias directors who broke the rules and in some cases applied for Sunrise names for themselves using fake Trademark numbers. I found it ironical in the Lorenz case that when it was made clear to Lorenz that his applications were ineligible and would harm honest Landrush applicants, he urgently and repeatedly pressed for the 90+ sunrise names to be cancelled in time for Landrush applicants to benefit. I have over 20 e-mails he sent with these requests. But he was ignored (although the ICANN-Registry Agreement gives Afilias specific authority to delete names in these circumstances). So Afilias's part of the profits were safeguarded, and DomainBank's part of the profits were safeguarded. Ironically, because of a credit card problem, about half of Lorenz's payment of $15000 could not be processed at the time, and afterwards Afilias aggressively pursued Lorenz through legal representatives for payment for the remainder... payment for a product which both DomainBank and Afilias knew was ineligible, knew was against the rules, and refused to cancel. DomainBank had charged $15000 for a product which they could not (under the terms of their own rules) provide.

And ordinary customers like myself and others suffered as a result.

The fact that Domainbank was the 'home' registrar company of the Afilias CEO made the whole affair even more distasteful.

If I am correct in believing that around half the pre-registrations through around 60 registrars were actually invalidated by the failure and corruption of the Sunrise process, then this suggests that consumers lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of money, which they had invested in good faith in a process which they were encouraged to participate in by the registrars, to have a fair chance of acquiring a domain name in the Landrush. These customers did not expect to have a guarantee to get all their applications - that much was understood - but it was reasonable that they should expect the process itself to be upheld by the Registry, by the Registrars, and by ICANN.

They were completely let down.

And when fair and reasonable concerns and questions were addressed to ICANN (and specifically to the executive with responsibility for liaising in these matters, Dan Halloran), the repeated mails (also published publically as time went on) were studiously ignored. Almost two years later, there has not even been the courtesy of an acknowledgement to repeated submissions of these concerns.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>