Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: rachelmacgregor
Date/Time: Thu, October 25, 2001 at 3:38 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Subject: A Sunrise fraudster bares his heart....


Just for your interest, as an insight into the mind of a Sunrise fraudster, I e-mailed a number of multiple-applicants and pretended to be sympathetic with them, to see if they would open up to me. One multiple applicant from the UK, under the handle "John Statcham" wrote me a number of e-mails. This is one of them in which he justifies what he did:

Hi Rachel,

I registered the names in the knowledge that these names would be
impossible to get under the current application guidelines as there are so many factors that make it impossible to even be in with a chance. I have tried to outline these below.

In my opinion, these generic names, once allocated, have been won by
default of the system allowing early registrants to claim a slice of
the internet realestate.

I believed that far from being fair within the the landrush period
where pre-registrants had priority over names my chances would be even less than if all the names were put in a hat and drawn at random. This would be the fairest way to allocate names, but as the system was open to people with the largest pockets having the best advantage I wanted to be first in the queue like all the other people who registered during the sunrise period.

I think that all the angry people are the ones who did not think of the idea first, and as it is no one 'mr big' that got all the good names it is fair to suggest that those of us who got them were just the quick thinkers and wisest investors - not fraudsters as everyone unlucky enough not to have got a piece of the action, has made out.

I felt that the only way to fairly have a chance was to be first in the queue, and registering generic names where no trademark holder
would question them was a safe way to be in with a chance.

There is an interesting article at that discusses the
problems of getting in line with registrars for the land rush - what I did was to avoid the fees which many unscrupulous registrars were charging and there was no guaranteee that they would even be processed during the landrush or whether the registrar themselves had put in for key names at the top of the queues they were presenting.

The sunrise registrants were, as I see it, just making it fairer by working on a first come first served basis for generic terms, which if they had waited would not have been given to those who deserved them - but to those who had enough money to increase their chances by pre-registering thousands of names with different registrars.

The whole process, far from being fair was open to misuse and many registrars were saying to increase your chances you should pay for multiple applications. Some registrars, as documented at, actively encouraged the public to register names in the
sunrise period.

In my opinion, as there is none supporting the 'sunrise' registrants,
as we have been labelled, we have been very misled by the registrars and the lack of clear, precise, information on the pre-registration landrush period, and it would be good for an independent body to sort this out and look in to the motives of each applicant - especially as most of the names in question are generic and therefore have no
trademark conflicts.

Returning briefly to the unfairness of the pre-registration process:
None of the registrars that I was able to find, stated
1. How many other people may have already applied for certain names
2. If there were other people who had applied whether they would be
you in the queue etc
3. Whether they would be in the first round robin selection process.

So can you see why this system is flawed and why I made a decision to jump this queue as it was clearly set up for the registrars to take loads of online creditcard debits, and make millions of dollars from the general public anxious to get their desired names on the pre-register list.

In my opinion there should have been a free and accessible central
database stating how many people had applied for each name and that from this pool one would be chosen at random. That way everyone would have had an equal chance and without that opportunity I do not believe that anyone, even Affilias, has the right to take names away registered in the sunrise period that are not challeneged only to put them back in a pot where the allocation and re-allocation was so flawed in the first place.

I believed that the fairest way was to claim my piece of the realestate immediatly - and as I believed I would not be challenged by a third party for my generic terms this was a good bet to be in with a FAIR chance as Affilias was announcing whois results from
the early queues and it was apparent that key names were disappearing fast.

As it turned out I was right as many people round the world did exactly the same thing. So far from being fraudulent as many people suggest, everyone who had the foresight to see that these generic names would be jumped on got in a very early queue and successfully got their applications through.

Just as a matter of interest, what right do you thing Afilias have for claiming generic terms when they obviously do not infringe upon anyones trademark, and where a trademark has been aplied for do you think a person will have the right to hold on to a name such as when it is clear they are not cybersquatters, but they are genuinely intent on developing their info names like I do.

I would be very interested in your opinion on these points as I think
there are many considerations for all parties to think about at the moment and the whole situation, as I am sure you will agree, has turned into one big mess that with the best will in the world from all sides is going to take ages to sort out.

Many thanks for your time in replying

"John Statcham".


Message Thread: