Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: richard04
Date/Time: Mon, March 18, 2002 at 11:21 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: How I know


If you're wondering how I know this, it's simple : when I saw a registrar's names all dated 2040, I decided to try it out to see if it was a glitch, and it was. Dumb admittedly, but it's what I did. I immediately requested the deletion of what I had done, but Afilias refused - so I was stuck with it. I sent over 30 e-mails out on 12th August (3 days later) informing Afilias and ICANN and NY Times etc what I had done and requesting deletion (and the deletion of all other ineligible names).

This e-mail was sent to Vint Cerf, Afilias, Ken Stubbs, Karl Auerbach, Stuart Lynn, the rest of the ICANN board individually, The Register,, ZDnet, The Washington Post (to 4 separate reporters), and The New York Times (to 10 separate reporters).

"The registrar has submitted many names with the Trademark in each case dated 2040-01-02 and no trademark number given: Graham Wilkinson has used them in this method to apply for all of the following:,,  (and I have tried it myself this weekend with a sample name!) My urgent request is that Afilias immediately deletes these improperly dated names. I feel that Afilias have a moral duty to resolve this and delete these phoney applications BEFORE Landrush begins."

From then on Afilias steadfastly refused the deletion option, and when I requested deletion on 4th January (which Afilias said they would allow after the challenge period) Tucows received a refusal to delete from Afilias: Paul Karkas at Tucows sent me this e-mail:

"I just received the reply from the .info registry, included below.

Please forgive me if the continuity is out of sorts, I cut and pasted the most pertinent parts for your edification.

Let me know if you need further explanation.

Paul Karkas
Compliance Officer OpenSRS
Tucows Inc.

> although this registrant seems to be well-meaning and wants a deletion of
> his names, reopening the database for him will mandate Afilias reopening
> database for the entire population of sunrise registrants -
> we can place the names mentioned below on our WIPO challenge list, and if
> your registrant does not contest it, the names will be returned to the
> of names to be distributed

So THAT'S how I know that WIPO are sending out the challenges.

What slightly irks me (apart from my own dumbness at the beginning) is that Afilias were prepared to delete Govinda Leopold's and and but they were not prepared to delete the name of someone who had been requesting deletion since the day of registration.

In this way, Afilias avoided having to challenge one of their own Directors.

I would like to stress that all along I have been opposed to the retention of names and immediately requested the deletion of my name. In those early days I don't think any of us really knew how this was all going to develop, and it seemed unthinkable to me that Afilias would lock in names that were ineligible, once a deletion was requested. I still take the view that all names should have been made available at Landrush, and that all facially ineligible ones should have been deleted before Landrush began.


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy