Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: richard_henderson
Date/Time: Sun, January 20, 2002 at 9:56 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Subject: Brilliant analysis


That post of yours is a brilliant and devastating analysis.

You are treading on dangerous ground.

The final comment - the only thing they understand is DIRECT ACTION - hits at the heart of the matter.

The same analysis was made by Osama bin Laden (or whoever was behind that attack).

It's absolutely obvious that the agenda is controlled, that the silences are controlled, that the decisions are controlled.

What's happened in the .info roll-out is a fascinating "chink in the door" on the deep deep corruption behind it - which of course goes far deeper than a quarrel over a few domain names.

I agree with your analysis that the reason for ICANN's existence is an intent to retain control of the root servers and DNS system, by putting in place a compliant body that appears detached from the executive but delivers its agenda.

The events of Afilias and .info were not accidental incompetence, but a strategy that has been carried out to a premeditated plan.

To retain control of the DNS system they must try to prevent expansion into multiple TLDs. Therefore the "proof of concept" TLDs must PROVE that there are immense problems (Wrong! They were self-created!) and that further BIG TLDs must be postponed.

At the same time, you must give the main deliverers of names a sufficient reward to keep them 'on board' with your own programme and so the roll-outs must be allowed to be as lucrative as possible. This encourages the private enterprise approach which is the US government's stated intent - by handing apparent delivery of DNS over to multiple outlets, you foster the argument that it can't be delivered through a single international agency, and you devolve influence to the community with most economic clout : the American business community. A good deal for their Trademark interests is part of the pay-off.

The .info roll-out NEEDED to be a shambolic failure : this played into ICANN's hands and provided the excuse for a slow down or end to meaningful new TLDs (with .museum and .aero style specifics being offered as a sop to suggest forward movement).

Consequently, when ICANN was alerted to the nature and extent of the .info fraud, they already knew - but maintained almost total silence and a policy of inaction. Indeed, they constructed the contracts and agreed to the procedures... procedures with checks so floppy and flimsy (basically making checks and safeguards impossible) that the Sunrise process just INVITED fraudsters to abuse the process.

When Robert Connor and others saw a way of circumventing the shambles (with the clearcut Domebase solution) they were ignored and no real explanation has ever been offered for the rejection of the obvious logical way out.

Instead, both ICANN and Afilias acted "surprised" and muddled their way through to the Landrush date, after which the shambles was secure.

"Spin" has been used to try to portray a proof of concept that is under control, but faced with problems.

Dangers to the agenda were, however, created by that uncalculated impulse of human greed, which saw the discovery of fraud WITHIN the agencies of registry and registrars. This threat to the agenda was dealt with by a wall of silence and evasion. Notwithstanding the high seriousness of the charges made against members of the Afilias executive and Board, no attempt has been made to defend the company.

Huge questions remain:

Why did ICANN not intervene when they knew the TM process was being abused and their own contract was being broken?
Why did Afilias not simply delete all facially ineligible applications (the procedure was flimsy, but not THAT flimsy)?
Why did executives and directors of Afilias submit ineligible TM claims in their roles as Registrars?
Why did not ICANN intervene to act against that breach of their signed contract?
Why was the Domebase solution not implemented?
Why was a process (Sunrise) SO flimsy, and SO abusable, and SO devoid of checks and safeguards, and SO open to any and every abuse ("NONE" "NONE" "NONE" "NONE" entries) developed for a flagship new TLD by people who were supposed to be the experts in their fields?
Why was Robert Connelly marginalised when he decided to resign, calling the Sunrise process "an abomination"?
Why are e-mails never answered?
Why are fair and serious issues, rationally posed, never answered in forums?
Why was the .info roll-out allowed to descend into shambles?


OUTCOME: The multiplication of new TLDs grinds to a virtual halt. "See how difficult they proved to be!" The few that exist are easier to control by the US government (through ICANN).

Economic power and political power can get almost anything it wants, if it chooses to.

And as you say, Jason, the only thing that people like this really listen to is DIRECT ACTION.

In a perverted way, that's exactly the analysis behind September 11th.       


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy