Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	challenge
Date/Time:	Tue, August 14, 2001 at 6:57 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 5.0
Subject:	We got this down, now how about this other potential fiasco???
Message:
This was posted by Paul Gill, elsewhere on this forum: "The problem with deleting fraudulent registrations prior to Land Rush instead of after the Challenge Period ends is that I can guarantee you that the registrars are going to end up with half these names. I say this because half of the ICANN accredited registrars have not participated in pre-registration of .info names. What they are going to do is submit very short lists (say in the range of 100 to 1000 names) into the Land Rush. They will register these domains in the names of there employees, friends, and relatives. One fraud will simply be just be replaced by another. Unlike the first one, this one will not correctable."

Message Thread:

• New Proposal for Action by Afilias — domebase, August 14 @ 6:34 PM (5/12)
• But even this doesn't solve... — dtobias, August 14 @ 9:44 PM (1/1)
• You are right — tomsters, August 14 @ 10:00 PM (0/0)
• revised based on your comments — domebase, August 14 @ 7:36 PM (1/1)
• How about the potential disaster of "Closed" lists? — challenge, August 14 @ 8:29 PM (0/0)
• We got this down, now how about this other potential fiasco??? — challenge, August 14 @ 6:57 PM (0/0)
• That's a good idea but.... — tomsters, August 14 @ 6:47 PM (1/2)
• Yes, I agree that Challenge fee should be — domebase, August 14 @ 7:12 PM (1/1)
• Sounds good. — tomsters, August 14 @ 7:17 PM (0/0)
• I disagree with one aspect in this plan — challenge, August 14 @ 6:46 PM (2/3)
• I agree that burden of proof should be on Sunrise Registrant — domebase, August 14 @ 7:16 PM (0/0)
• Good idea — tomsters, August 14 @ 6:57 PM (1/1)
• Excellent! — onmove, August 14 @ 7:30 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy