Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Gregory W. Krajewski
Date/Time: Sat, November 4, 2000 at 7:59 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: ICANN:  You mentioned "fairness" and the "consumer" on your website...I would like to comment...

Message: 		 

 
        TO ICANN:       
  
I really think you need to ask yourselves as a group honestly this question? (both the ICANN staff and board)..and the question would be:  Do we have the public trust?? (public here includes all the constituencies, including the missing one, the individual) 

Is there enough public trust to comment about "fairness" and the "consumer" on your website???.....

Please do not comment how difficult your position is right now...If the IPC lobby had not infiltrated your organization, there wouldn't be the mess we have today...for it would be the courts that would have had to come to terms (that is their job) with the changing times, not the body that controls the "A" root server (one of many)...

I am a researcher (as well as a web designer)...So far, after studying ICANN I am not sure what you will do in Marina Del Ray...You stated in your testimony last year before congress (see link below) that ICANN is simply here to take care of technical matters...Is it still?? There are other comments in this testimony that really puts into perspective what influences ICANN...

For example, how was ICANN being funded up until last year?? (I am not sure about this year as I haven't seen a financial disclosure for your organization)---Do you think we are privvy to this information on your website--for At Large members to see??...Since you ask this of the applicants...Isn't your finanicial status important to the DNS as well??? The answer to my previous question regarding funding were donations kindly given by Microsoft and IBM (from congressional testimony---see link below)... I make no inference (as how else can it survive money-wise??), however this should be known who donates to ICANN....I take note that you have on your DNSO board (the one that "gives you advice") a person which at one time appears to have been affiliated with IBM...(Remember it is all in the testimony below)..Also it appears we have a new ICANN board member who used to be on the DNSO board (until this past summer)..appears this person is very close to the IPC lobby...(DISCLAIMER) Notice I say "appears" to all these comments, as people and affiliations do change

..It does concern me as to which direction this board will "lean" at Marina del Ray...Since your "new" mission involves ensuring TM mechnisms are in place...This is why the make up of the Supreme Court of the United States is so important (and carefully watched with good reason)...How many on the ICANN board are pro 'Sunrise' as opposed to allowing registries to follow UDRP princples for introduction of new TLD's???... (I urge you to read my other post about the "Sunrise"..)

Do you see that you have strayed completely from your original mission??? (which is a no-brainer since it appears the TM lobby influences ICANN too heavily)...I have read the "White Paper", and your job (and IANA's) has changed somewhat, but the CORE (not afiliated with Afilias) mission should be that of a technical nature and to create competition ....Should it not?? If not for the sake of keeping the DNS unified and ICANN out of legal trouble (i.e this latest fiasco)....Who represents ICANN and how much for the legal expense???  That is clearly money that could be put to use...

I really think it is obvious with the recent statements on your website and statements by the IPC that you yourselves mask the word "fairness" pretty good (it sounds good to the people you report to)....No, fairness to me is about honesty and integrity...Something that clearly is earned...and proven...

Board members jumping over to potential applicants at the last moment does NOT instill confidence in this process (the person didn't get on the board because they just happened to be available to fill the seat....Please give us more credit than that)...Also (a bone of contention) is a DNSO board member (also a board member for a few registrars who are applying for a TLDs), who clearly has "full" access to providing you ICANN, with "advice" (and did so--recommended new TLD's) is still on that DNSO board...(DISLCLAIMER) He will not be directly involved in voting for the applications (and is in fact not on the ICANN board, but rather a "supporting" organization of ICANN that gives advises---Is this advice balanced in light of the fact the individual is not represented??).   The "bone of contention" here is ICANN has not specifically addressed this issue with respect to conflicts of interest (if there are any) on the other supporting boards....

In the eyes of the public (me included), that truly is something that needs to be worked on...Instead, one group has taken this nonprofit organization completely over (In my opinion, through research)...If I am wrong, I would like a response...For that is clearly how it appears...Remember, a researcher (a good one) does not form an opionion until both sides of an issue are fully explored....Something I have spent a lot of time doing these past few months (11 to be exact!!)

My research will continue..(and it is very interesting!!)..I will make it my mission to continue to write every member of congress (which I have done before) until some balance is brought into this organization (The IPC, Business, Registrar, NonCom, ISPs, and finally the Individual)...Otherwise, I do fear that the DNS will split (I do not want this to happen!!)...It is a little known fact that there are others who can operate a root server....Why should I as a business owner and more importantly, individual, who took risks and has shown interest in the Dot Web long before this current process (and certainly before any DSNO press release) get the "cold shoulder" from ICANN..or even worse, have Afilias or Neustar dismiss my hard work and IOD's (yes, I have been building a website, etc in anticipation--And yes I was ready for a "no" vote to IOD, but clearly with Afilias and Neustar in the picture things have "changed" I will not accept anything less the a "yes" vote for IOD and it's registrants)....Heck I would be your greatest asset...I truly am interested in the preservation of the DNS as is IOD and it's supporters are (yes you will have cybersquatters on IOD, but with UDRP and IOD's win-win propostion for "volunteer" return policy, how can you lose or more importantly the consumers/TM for that matter)....By the way, you imply consumers are incapable of making sound choices on your website (IN MY OPINION)...This is a slap in the face of ALL IOD supporters...instead we are referred to what some people call "claim jumpers" (see comments below w/link)...Not business people making a choice (which a lot of businesses have done, besides myself...Excite @home, registered Excite.web on IOD):

>>>Although he would not comment on specific alternative registries, Touton in principal questioned whether any domain-name pre-registrations in unminted TLDs should be honored. "Perhaps it's not fair to give somebody preference for being what some people call a claim jumper," he said<
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,38653-2,00.html

Fairness to me is simply respecting, the process of how to deal with a "pioneer" with a solid (current) application (there was also another application (request for TLD) filled out by IOD I believe in (1996)---"Fairness??")--I know this current application is strong as I have reviewed it and so have many others.  So far the only negative comments come from "stealth" posters interestingly who do not wish to state who they are afiliated with, and others who have asked some pretty tough questions of the IOD applicant, but were immediately responded to by the applicant...Here is a lesson in customer service for everyone to see... I know I felt good that this person has been here every day to answer questions.....This is just another reason why I chose IOD and stand behind them completely, as they will definitely make the likes of NSI be accountable to the consumer...Right now your lucky to get an "autoresponder" from them, if you email them...

...From day one it has been, the time honored (and coveted principle with respect to the DNS):  Can you show prior use, setting up a working registry (with verifiable running code, and stability (finances, server capability)...Yes, ICANN has posted "new" requirements for applications to meet...but if those are met....in your words, fairness SHOULD result...unless...there is influence in this process Which way does the board will "lean"...most of us are not sure...Frankly when I email ICANN (the staff), i don't even bother to look at my inbox for for a response ...eerily it is much like requesting customer service from NSI....and what else should we expect??...You folks are not accountable to us personally...We did not elect you, nor did we vote on which staff members were up to the task.. In all fairness this process had to get started somehow and did need structure, so a body had to be formed (the question is, is that structure balanced enough to generate confidence in your decisions???) Please don't think this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...The latter question by a lay person is quite legitimate, especially when their interests are clearly at stake..For if it is truly balanced, acceptance of any decisions with respect to new gTLD's will be much easier..

I really think ICANN missed a golden opportunity to bring confidence into the process as you should have allowed the newly elected ICANN At Large board members to have a vote on the new TLDs in Marina del Ray, at least no one could argue whatever decision was made, that is wasn't fair...

I hope you don't take the above comments as critical, they are meant to be constructive in that I do believe there is some hope to bring balance to ICANN (indiviual constinuency)...No, this is more of a wakeup call...I am tired, as I have been fighting for this cause, for sometime now..which seems to be falling on deaf ears....I do not want big business to take over the DNS, (which clearly sees dot web as a new revenue source--that is also in the congressional report where NSI, states, "Our shareholders come first!!!  I think Neustar and Affilias would agree, wouldn't you)...I want competition...and I want to compete myself...against other dot com's....

Frankly I am fed UP with NetSol/Register.com=Afilias, and this Neustar
New business names, same registrars, same level of service = very little consumer confidence...However it is funny that they win the respect of the IPC. IOD on the other hand has had many comments with respect to it's level of service and commitment to both the consumer and TM owners...

So when you speak about "fairness" ICANN, and being there for the consumer...GIVE ME A BREAK...I deserve that right to question these comments....You have to earn the right to speak about fairness...Frankly I have fully researched old contacts at NTIA, and the ICANN board and I will reserve judgement...but I do have the right to question...

Do not squander this moment to reinforce old time respected values on the internet (why do you think America has lasted all this time...It's called the Constitution...and very little has changed to this SIGN of stability...other than the ammendments, which brought new freedoms (rather than oppressive ones)...

The coders were there first, and do have the right to bring to the ICANN table a "pioneer" registry (in that they actually developed a working model, before any "players" besides NSI) and TLD (that by the way, through their efforts have made the TLD very sought after)---IOD is definitely in a league of its own ...So when you speak about fairness again, watch it...as we are watching you!!

Thank you

Gregory W. Krajewski
gkrajews@mato.com
       

      
     
     
 
Link: your comments to congress - under oath - 7/99

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy