Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: icanncant
Date/Time: Fri, September 7, 2001 at 9:57 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Subject: Repost of  "ICANN Defraud: The Fraud of the ICANN New TLD Process".


                        This must not be allowed to be swept under the carpet.
      ICANN Defraud: The Fraud of the ICANN New TLD Process.

While the abuse and unethical conduct taking place with the rollout of .info and .biz must not be allowed to continue and those responsible need to be held accountable the public must understand that these events are but the growth of the rotten seeds planted by the corrupt weed called ICANN or known by it’s scientific reference as (corruptus maximus) These growing weeds stem from the malignant new TLD process where you will find fraud is present.

In October of 2000, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers received 44 applications each seeking to introduce and operate at least one new Top Level Domain.

The process was controversial from the start as ICANN decided a $50,0000 Non-refundable application fee would be a requirement, when questioned about such an unusually high and non-refundable fee ICANN stated that it would be necessary to cover the costs associated with an applicant in the process. In essence $50,000 was determined a sufficient amount as if an applicant were one of the chosen applicants.

It is obvious that those actually chosen would represent a larger amount of the expenses incurred on a per applicant basis as they would continue into the finalization phase of the process but why did ICANN set the fee as if every applicant would enter the final phase?

Many argued that such a high fee was discriminatory towards non-commercial applicants who perhaps couldn't take a gamble with such an uncertain outcome due in large part to a process that lacked well-stated objective criteria.
In reality, an applicant couldn’t determine where they stood.

Although such criteria was suspiciously absent, many companies must have been confident that they were qualified otherwise; they would not have submitted an application along with the $50,0000

Perhaps the applicants should have refused to participate under such questionable circumstances and shouldn’t have until it could be determined the process was clear and unambiguous however considering the difficulty and length of time a majority of the applicants have endured in getting to actual inclusion in the A Root, some might have figured they risk more by not participating at all.

There is no question in my mind that ICANN’s approach to this process took full advantage of the circumstances surrounding this issue. Their actions appear more like a monopolistic supplier than an impartial overseer.

The principal reason behind the formation of ICANN was to introduce competition into the domain market; a market controlled solely by Network Solutions now owned by Verisign. One particular facet of the plan to break up the Network Solutions monopoly was through the introduction of additional TLDs, which would allow the consumer more choice in TLDs, pricing and service. On the other side of the equation are the entrepreneurs seeking to be the actual “competition”.

Ironically many of the very same applicants of the ICANN process were also those who lent their support to ICANN during it’s formation, as they believed in the proposed idea of ICANN and it’s principles. Unfortunately the reality of ICANN is far different than the proposed “idea” and as far as the “principles” of ICANN Well, they have none.

These same applicants now find that actually nothing has changed regarding the “barrier to entry” they have been fighting against other than the date and time. The fact is they were deceived by ICANN who I deem a Trojan horse of the DNS as they purport to be one thing but are another.

When the applications were made public one application in particular, the Afilias application caught the attention of numerous people who then raised some legitimate concerns.

Afilias was formed by and is comprised of 19 registrars that between them collectively represent 10 million domain name registrations, a very significant amount of the domain market, companies such as Network Solutions and are it's two largest members. This is most peculiar considering the idea is to open competition, not plant what appears to be the seed of a larger monopoly. It was also noted that the $50,0000 fee Afilias paid was to split between the 19 making it inconsequential as their inclusion in the new cartel will surely guarantee their success.

ICANN continually states they are an open and transparent bottom up organization built on consensus. The recent claim to shame sprouting from ICANN is their assertion of being the protectors of the  "public trust".
The words sound sweet and look great on paper but that is about all it’s worth.
ICANN has grown comfortable over the years making such misleading statements.

ICANN is made up of a board of directors that gets their "consensus" from their three supporting organizations who it so happens actually elect the directors.
The ensuing story is related to one of the ICANN Supporting Organizations called the Domain Name Supporting Organization or DNSO for short. The DNSO is comprised of various constituencies and who are these constituencies? Simply, big business interests other than one unfortunate non-commercial constituency.
The "public" need not apply. I repeat the Public need not apply.

The public was promised a real voice in ICANN but it has never materialized and has only been thwarted every step of the way but that issue in itself is better suited for it’s own story.

So here’s where it gets real interesting, when the applications were made public, people quickly noticed that Ken Stubbs, then chairman of the Names Council part of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN was directly involved in a number of applications through his various personal interests as you will soon see. i.e. He is on the board of Afilias!

There was an uproar from many over this however ICANN simply ignored these concerns by not even addressing them. As the process continued the applications were "reviewed" by the staff of ICANN who then presented a report on each applicant to the board of directors who would then base their decisions in large part to these staff reports.

Within hours of the public release of the Staff reports, many applicants became very concerned to put it mildly over the content and inexcusable conclusions of the ICANN staff. The staff reports contained outright erroneous information or simply omitted the facts, if not a combination of both. As if those two things weren’t bad enough the most despicable action taken by the ICANN staff was when they would single out certain aspects of an application for scorn and then had the audacity to praise the similar if not the identical aspects of another application.

Not only were most applicants subjected to an unfair review but to boot their pleas requesting attention to the inaccuracies before the board voted were simply ignored.

The conduct of the ICANN staff in itself denied the applicants a fair and honest process.

This farce resulted in the most likely revenue generating TLDs being handed to the biggest established players. Today we are already witnessing some of the results of the inherently corrupt process. The most obvious being. info and .biz however look at .pro these people have been unable to launch a registry yet they were awarded a TLD, so much for pros.

Another aspect that contributed to a process being anything but fair and honest is ICANN’s decision to stick to the “timetable”, a decision made at the expense of the applicants they were to serve. The fact is ICANN admits that the timetable was based on the projections of a much smaller number of applicants and still they were inflexible on this when it was very apparent that their projections were wrong. While they advocated the importance of sticking to a flawed schedule I find it ironic and hypocritical how unimportant the “timetable” appears to be now, because if you were aware all the contracts of the chosen applicants were to be finalized by December 31, 2000. That’s right, I said “2000”, so much for the timetable. Guess who is responsible for the “finalization” phase? The ICANN Staff!

ICANN Lawyer and Vice President Louis Touton and Staff should be fired.

It is quite evident while the ICANN staff was allowed to pass what they might like to call judgment about applicants it is they who are truly incompetent because here we are in September 2001 and not one single TLD is ready for full operation but instead we are being victimized by ICANN’s own doing regarding .info and .biz I find it difficult to believe that ICANN, Afilias, Nuelevel and their high priced lawyers could ever legitimately claim they didn’t know this could happen. The public pointed out these problems beforehand, even on these very boards. ICANN in an attempt to feign ignorance and avoid responsibility will call it part of their “proof of concept” just as many have predicted. The real danger of this is ICANN like a fox will use it to impede the introduction of additional new TLDs by claiming failure on the first round. ICANN is not what they purport to be, let us not consider their words but consider their actions to date. If you do just that than you will see them as they are, a front for Verisign! Follow the money people, Follow the money.

To sum it up, it was simply a dishonest and unfair process from start to finish that was built on Conflict of Interest and you, I and the applicants cheated are the victims, but not Ken Stubbs and associates, 

Ken Stubbs and those directly associated with him benefited the most while 37 applicants were cheated out of $50,000 not to mention any other expenses they would incur

There were 44 applications submitted to ICANN and only 7 or 15% were chosen.
Of the 7 TLDs chosen 3 of them .Info,.Aero and .Museum are directly linked to Ken Stubbs and/or his associates. One other TLD .biz was awarded to Neulevel, were Melbourne IT has an equity interest. This should come under suspicion because Melbourne IT is also a member of CORE and is a big established player.

Mr. Ken Stubbs very public role as Chairman of the Names
Council Of the DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization)
and participation in numerous new TLD applications must
be investigated.

The facts below make it quite clear

Kenyon Stubbs, Board member of Afilias Chairman of the
Executive Committee, CORE; Vice President Domain Bank;
Chairman of the ICANN Names Council, VP & Director of
iDomain, Inc. (Another Applicant) This page provides the disclosure of
all CORE involvement in the various applications. I am
almost certain this information was not present until
after the selections were made.

ICANN Organizational Chart:

Directors (CORE Executive Committee)
Current members of the Executive Committee

Mr. Ken Stubbs, Chairman, .Info

Dr. Jonathan Robinson, member of Executive Committee

Mr. François Luc Collignon, member of Executive Committee

Mr. Hal Lubsen, member of Executive Committee, .Info

Ms. Rosa Delgado, member of Executive Committee, .Aero

Mr. Robert F. Connelly, member of Executive Committee,

Mr. Werner Staub, member of Executive Committee and Head
of CORE Secretariat, .Museum

TOP Level Domains Chosen by ICANN that have strong ties
to KEN Stubbs and associates

.INFO:  Kenyon Stubbs, One of 13 Afilias board members,
Chairman of the Executive Committee, CORE; Vice    
President Domain Bank; Chairman of the ICANN Names
Council,VP & Director of iDomain, Inc. (Another 

.INFO: Mr. Robert F. Connelly, member of Executive
Committee of CORE, Afilias board member and the
management of Procurement Services International (Japan),
Inc., one of the 19 registrars of Afilias

  INFO: Mr. Hal Lubsen, President of Afilias, member of
Executive Committee of CORE and Is an Officer, Director
and Shareholder of idomains. Part owner and management of
Domain Bank one of the nineteen registrars of Afilias

.AERO: Rosa Delgado is currently a member of the
Executive Committee of CORE and of the Business
Constituency of ICANN. SITA Director Internet Industry
Relations, is also a member of the Internet Society
(ISOC) Board of Trustees

.MUSEUM: Core is registry operator, agreement signed by
Werner Staub of the Executive Committee of CORE


Top Level Domain Chosen by ICANN where CORE is affiliated
and special note that a competing .biz application was
submitted on behalf of idomains, a company Ken Stubbs and
Henry Lubsen of CORE are officers and directors

.BIZ: was awarded to Neulevel, Melbourne IT a CORE
It should be noted that idomains was an applicant for
.biz,.ebiz and.ecom as well. Here is the management of
The full names and positions of all officers, directors,
and managers:
Henry A. Lubsen, Jr.
Kenyon T. Stubbs
Michael D. Palage
M. Scott Hemphill

Henry A. Lubsen, Jr., President
Steve Heflin, Vice President
Kenyon T. Stubbs, Vice President
M. Scott Hemphill, Vice President & General Counsel

Top Level Domains Not Chosen by ICANN with Ken Stubbs and
associate ties

.NOM: was a proposal by CORE acting as the Sponsoring
organization and registry operator The Listed management
is CORE and it's Executive Committee

.HEALTH: Core is the proposed registry operator made of
the same Executive committee and Werner Staub signing the

The fact is that the 7 choices of ICANN are terrible and
In every survey ever conducted not one of these TLDs faired
very well so even this ICANN couldn't do right.

I followed the process closely and it was anything but fair.
Think about in this light for a moment.

Ken Stubbs and his cohorts stand to make millions and I ask you this If
this was let's suppose a situation where the federal, state or local govt was accepting applications or bids for a project or projects and subsequently we come to find that most of the projects if not all went to some of the very people who are part of or directly associated with people in the organization that awards the projects.

What would you deem it?

It would be an immediate scandal!

You know they have a name for this sort of behavior, It’s called graft!

Remember that $50,000 per application? Soon after the 7 were chosen, people started asking about the couple million dollars that should be remaining. One
representative of ICANN was quoted in the news that refunds look very possible and that more TLDs could be
chosen from among the remaining applications during the March 2001 ICANN meeting No sooner than it probably took the ink to dry on the story we observed an about face and then ICANN president Michael Roberts stated that the funds were spoken for to fund the cost of the 7 chosen applicants.

Could those not chosen be anymore insulted and disrespected?
They participated and submitted $50,000 in good faith with the understanding that the fee was as such to cover the full costs as if they were chosen but only to find they were subjected to a dishonest and unfair process and that there money was used to benefit others.

Where did $2,000,000 go? I have yet to see an audited and itemized accounting of these funds. Where's the transparency and the openness?

Keep in mind that ICANN is represented by a large and powerful law firm called Jones Day through their attorney Joe Sims whose name has surrounded every major controversy dating to the formation of ICANN itself. It is no wonder that Vice President and Counsel of ICANN Louis Touton in charge of the ICANN staff was formerly employed at Jones Day. The bulk of the revenue from the new TLD process flows directly to the Jones Day coffers. The conduct surrounding the relationship between ICANN and Jones Day is very suspect and needs to be considered seriously in any investigation. Jones Day reminds me of some real life sinister version of the law firm from the television series the Three Stooges aptly named Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe

And as a testament to the ever present unfairness of ICANN, the new
ICANN president Stuart Lynn arrogantly and in violation of ICANN's own
by-laws issued a policy that would for instance disqualify some of the remaining 37 applicants for further consideration because they operate Top Level Domains on an "alternative root". In spite of the fact that these operations pre-date ICANN's very existence by years yet the applicants remitted $50,000 in good faith and ICANN made no mention of it before in fact as part of the circus they called a fair and honest process they discussed such applicants for window dressing but they did discuss them which only proves what Mr. Lynn and his paper are, a fraud!

Just maybe and I do mean maybe the injustices surrounding .info and .biz will be halted but even if they are it still leaves the weed to remain to grow and you can be sure that this will cause other problems looking into the future.

A smart gardener means you can’t just clip a couple weeds because that only solves the problem temporarily. To be a smart gardener you have to attack it at the root.

The only way to attack and avoid these problems is to be a smart gardener and pull ICANN and the elements that influence them i.e. Jones Day, Verisign from the ROOT. If that can be done you will get a big green thumbs up from the world.

Good Luck.





Link: ICANN Defraud

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy