ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re:your question
    by Anonymous on Thursday January 02 2003, @04:18AM (#10820)
    Yes, DomainBank and Afilias broke their Registry-Registrar Agreement Rules AFTER Afilias's announcement, recognising the problem, on August 15th.


    For example CivilWar.info:


    Domain ID: D70903-LRMS
    Domain Name: CIVILWAR.INFO
    Created On: 20-Aug-2001 15:22:26 UTC
    Expiration Date: 20-Aug-2006 15:22:26 UTC
    Trademark Name: none
    Trademark Date: 2001-08-17
    Trademark Country: none
    Trademark Number: none
    Sponsoring Registrar: Domain Bank, Inc. (R107-LRMS)
    Status: ACTIVE
    Status: LOCKED
    Status: OK
    Registrant ID: C172044-LRMS
    Registrant Name: StrategicDomains.Com L.L.C.
    Registrant Organization: StrategicDomains.Com L.L.C.
    Registrant Street: xxxxxxxx
    Registrant City: xxxxxxxx
    Registrant State/Province: xxxxxxxxx
    Registrant Postal Code: xxxxxxxx
    Registrant Country: xxxxxxxxx
    Registrant Phone: xxxxxxxx
    Registrant Email: xxxxxxx
    Admin ID: C172045-LRMS
    Admin Name: William Lorenz


    Admittedly this particular one has a TM date, but it was mandatory for all FOUR TM fields to be properly filled. Afilias knew this. DomainBank knew this.


    This domain was not allowed to be submitted by DomainBank.


    This domain was not allowed to be registered by Afilias.


    There are 92 more like this, just from this individual customer.


    The rules were flouted for thousands more, presumably because people were desperate for profit.




    Richard Henderson

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:your question by Anonymous
    The actual rules that were broken (copy of 11-04-0
    by Anonymous on Thursday January 02 2003, @04:35AM (#10821)
    14th November 2001


    Dear Vint


    I call on ICANN to commence Sanctions procedures against Afilias if the .info names registered for William Lorenz are not deleted immediately.


    Afilias has the powers to delete these names immediately under section I (i) of Exhibit E of the Registry-Registrar Agreement.


    William Lorenz has requested Afilias and DomainBank EIGHTEEN times to delete 91 ineligible names registered at Sunrise in his name. They were registered with "NONE" submitted as data in the relevant Trademark sections. Details of these names can be found at www.theinternetchallenge.com


    There have been repeated requests from around the world for these ineligible names to be deleted immediately and released to the public (an obligation Afilias has under the ICANN-Afilias agreed Code of Conduct, to administer DNS resources "in a manner that makes them available to all parties").


    I request that ICANN INSIST these names are deleted IMMEDIATELY, and that sanctions are put in place if Afilias does not comply.


    I draw attention to :


    THE REGISTRY-REGISTRAR AGREEMENT


    Section 3.5 states: "Registrar SHALL COMPLY with all of the following:..."


    3.5.2 "...The Registry Operator's standards as set out in EXHIBIT E"


    EXHIBIT E Section V.3.PROCESSING


    "In order for TM owners to qualify for registration during the Sunrise period, the following information MUST be provided to Registry Operator (Afilias): 1. Trademark Name 2. TM date 3. TM country 4. TM number"


    "REGISTRAR SHALL REQUIRE THIS INFORMATION"


    Elsewhere in Section 3.6 it states:


    "As part of its registration and sponsorship of Registered Names in the Registry TLD, the registrar SHALL SUBMIT COMPLETE DATA."


    In the case of 91 names sponsored by DomainBank for William Lorenz, DomainBank were in breach of their Registry-Registrar Agreement.


    I assert that Afilias is in breach of its ICANN-Registry Operator agreement, in that they (a) failed to enforce the requirements of the Registry-Registrar agreement with DomainBank; (b) failed - and continue to fail - to administer the DNS resources (specifically these 91 names) in a "manner that makes them available to all parties".


    As Mr Hal Lubsen is both an executive of DomainBank and CEO of Afilias, I find these breaches at Registry and Registrar level to be particularly grievous.


    Taken with the sponsorship of the "Plankenstein names" by Speednames (also represented on the Afilias Board) these abuses of the process have been responsible for over 50% of all Sunrise fake registrations.


    In addition, there is the one-off case of the Afilias Board member Govinda Leopold, whose company 1stDomainNet procured Hawaii.info and Maui.info with fake Trademark numbers (which Govinda has already admitted, though attributing it to one-off error... an error which was repeated a month later with Govinda.info). While this individual case may be rationalised magnanimously as a "mistake", what remains inexplicable is that the three names have been retained and not deleted, to "make them available to all parties" (ie the public) as the Code of Conduct stipulates.


    I await ICANN's response to these very specific and (I believe) reasonable allegations.


    Yours sincerely


    Richard Henderson


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:your question
    by Anonymous on Thursday January 02 2003, @04:44AM (#10822)
    Is that an eliglible TM date, or a date after the cut-off required by the sunrise rules? If it's an ineliglble date the issue is moot. The TM data would be wholly ineligible. Crazy business. Just plain nuts. In fact, taking this from a micro to macro scale, all applications processed with ineligible dates or ineligible whatever should have been subjected to a bit more scrutiny to protect the integrity of landrush. - domainPI
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com