Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: richard_henderson
Date/Time: Wed, October 10, 2001 at 10:08 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Subject: More ICANNspeak...


Roland laPlante says: "There may have been ways in which we could have screened applications better."

Afilias didn't screen applications AT ALL... at least NOT ones dated 1899, 2040, NONE, 2001... NOT ones numbered "1", "55544444" (but then, that was Afilias Board member Govinda Leopold's!), "0", NONE, FOR SALE, 12345, eg12345, 11111111111... NOT ones with Trademark names NONE, countries NONE... NOT the 4981 submitted by Plankenstein (but then Afilias Board group Speednames benefitted up to $500,000 for them!)... NOT the 91 submitted by Hal Lubsen's company for William Lorenz, all listed Country NONE Date NONE TM number NONE, and which Lorenz asked 18 times to get deleted (but then Lubsen charged $13,300 to support that fraud - then as CEO for Afilias presumably didn't "screen" the names before registering them - funny, that...!) ...NOT the 333 names registered to, even though registrars were contractually banned from applying ...NOT the "registrar reserved" for another Afilias Board members registrars... NOT Cass Foster's 100's all with identical numbers... NOT CJLovik's which were simply called "keywords"... NOT Hal Lubsen's own "Fort Knox"... not Yesnic's 100's of prime genetic names, even though - oh! look! - they are a registrar and not allowed to apply aren't they - but hell, we'll somehow fail to screen those...

ROLAND laPLANTE is simply spinning again...

"There may have been ways in which we could have screened applications better."

You didn't screen them at all, Roland! Or if you did, wow, you seemed to have somehow missed all these!

Who are you kidding?      


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy