Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: DomeBase
Date/Time: Tue, September 18, 2001 at 9:18 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows NT
Subject: .INFO: Top Ten Questions for Investigation


                Dear Friends,

I'm back in the fray.  In some respects, the odds are not good folks.   The Land Rush is upon us without constructive action.  Many registrars seem to be purging pre-reg information.  Additional charges appear out of nowhere.  There are pockets of integrity, but many parties involved do pretty much whatever they please -- banking on the disorganization and scattered nature of Land Rushers -- and the lack of general public interest in what is to many an arcane "speculator" issue.  I found Slicer wearisome, but he may have been right in some respects in that what we write here may have little impact.  If we wish to make a real difference, we need to have a sober and realistic view of what we are up against and what can be done. However, Antipodes is right in that if we give up on righting this wrong, we can not expect others to speak up.  There are still pockets of public interest in this issue and Afilias could still implement a Land Rush II which could use existing pre-reg information. 

I am asking for your help in coming up with a succinct list of the top 10 Questions for Investigation concerning the .INFO start up.  I am not exactly sure what to do with these... but I think that it could be useful. The following is my first shot at the top ten questions.  We should try to keep them clean and pointing toward factual issues.  I personally would like to try to avoid ad hominen points. 

What are your suggested revisions and/or additions?  Let me know and I'll begin revising the list.

Sincerely, DomeBase

.INFO Start Up: Top (10) Questions for Investigation:

Why were there not even basic data field checks for Sunrise

Did some registrars encourage fraud by sending e-mails promoting
registration of non-trademarked names during Sunrise, saying that
trademark specifics were "optional," or themselves filling in
fraudulent trademark information?

Did some executives or employees of the registry or registrars
abuse "registrar-reserved" privilege and/or cybersquat by
registering their personal name, the names of geographic areas
such as states, or names which are the legitimate trademarks of
other parties? 

Did some executives or employees of the registry or registrars
register any names using fraudulent trademark information?

Why did the registry not address the problem of Land Rush
registrants cheated out of their pre-registration fees by Sunrise
squatters before the Land Rush period -- especially when there
were proposals to correct the problem that would have benefitted
all parties except fraudulent registrants?

Did some registrars use "bait and switch" tactics by: adding
additional charges not specified when consumers signed; or by
switching from single to multiple submissions per name?

Did some registrars accept non-refundable pre-registration fees
for names that were not available (e.g. because they were
reserved or already registered)?



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy