Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1560
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, January 19 2003          Volume 01 : Number 1560

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:17:58 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2BFAC.6BF69F00
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

HelpMr. Henderson:

Which "one" would you like me to answer?

I have worked with Mr. Hendeles and his companies in the past, although I
have not received any compensation (consulting fees, salary, etc) from Mr.
Hendeles or his companies in over two years since the submission of ICM
Registry's proposal. I believe the randomized round-round mechanism used by
both Afilias (Sunrise, Land Rush and Land Rush 2) and NeuStar (Class IIB) to
be legal and one of several equitable ways to reallocate domain names.

Take the time and read ICM Registry's proposal. You will see that it
proposes a different allocation scheme, one which I also believe to be legal
and equitable.

Based upon my involvement with the ICANN Registrar Constituency I have
learned that no two registrar business models are a like. One of the reasons
that ICANN was created was to create competition at the registrar and
registry level.  As to your open ended question about what is fair and what
is not, I respectfully choose not to step into that morass.

I am sure as a father you have had your three girls say to you daddy that is
not fair. My three year old son has done the same on many occasions. When I
was growing up my dad told me on many occasions that life was not fair. As
an engineering undergrad I remember one exam where after four pages of
complex mathematical calculations, I transposed a number. I received zero
points for the problem despite clearly understanding the concept and the
method to solve the problem. When I went to the professor to seek partial
credit for my work, he told me that engineering is an exact science. If I
was to build a bridge and make the same mistake would I receive partial
credit for the people that died when the bridge collapsed.

After practicing as an engineer for a number of years, I found it
challenging to switch gears from an exact science such as engineering to law
which was not so exact, at least US common law. The challenge of equitably
reallocating domain names either at the launch of the registry or in
connection with deleting domain name is not easy. Every approach has pros
and cons. There is no one right answer that I am aware of. Therefore, I
believe that registries and registrars should be allowed to allocate names
in any manner which does not violate the law.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

P.S. These are my personal view points and do not necessarily reflect the
position of any client(s).

P.P.S Please be advised that I do have business relationship with various UK
entities, and that I consider your posting to this list to be made in the
UK.

P.P.P.S I will be spending the rest of the day with my son watching the
American football playoff, so I will not have the time to engage in any
further dialog, cheers.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Richard
Henderson
  Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:05 AM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

  If Registrar R217 (who submitted the second shortest list in the .biz2B
and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A Technology Company, Inc...
  then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, and I suspect
that this list was closed to the public so that its own owners could
benefit...

  The practice of some registrars in submitting deliberately short lists to
"queue-jump" in Landrush situations was demonstrated very clearly in .biz2B
and .info LR2. The shorter your list, the sooner your name came up in the
round-robin process. Some registrars like Signature Domains appear to have
applied for a tiny number of domains just for themselves, to play the
system. I believe Jason Hendeles was involved in the same thing.

  Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ATech Registrars
  Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ICM Registry Inc

  Michael Palage of Afilias is/was linked to ICM as their Chief Policy
Officer. He has confirmed this in his "Disclosure" in the Registrars Mailing
List in December 2001.

  ICM may have been hoping to run a new .XXX registry and gained adult.info
in LR2, using their co-company ATech Registrars

  This means that ATech submitted a tiny list (to gain advantage) and
submitted this application for its own co-company and co-owner

  WHOIS details - showing Jason's e-mail:

  Domain ID:  D2264928-LRMS
  Domain Name:  ADULT.INFO
  Created On:  13-Jul-2002 19:16:49 UTC
  Expiration Date:  13-Jul-2004 19:16:49 UTC
  Sponsoring Registrar:  A Technology Company dba Namesystem.com (R217-LRMS)
  Status:  HOLD
  Status:  OK
  Registrant ID:  C2355539-LRMS
  Registrant Name:  Cadomain RegistrY Inc
  Registrant Organization:  Cadomain Registry, Inc
  Registrant Street1:  130 Adelaide Street West
  Registrant Street2:  Suit 2500
  Registrant City:  Toronto
  Registrant State/Province:  Ontario
  Registrant Postal Code:  M4H 2M2
  Registrant Country:  CA
  Registrant Phone:  +1.4168681080
  Registrant Email:  [email-masked]
  Admin ID:  C2355554-LRMS
  Admin Name:  A Technology Company Inc
  Admin Organization:  A Technology Company Inc
  Admin Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens
  Admin City:  Toronto
  Admin State/Province:  Ontario
  Admin Postal Code:  M4W 1P
  Admin Country:  CA
  Admin Phone:  +1.4169293695
  Admin Email:  [email-masked]
  Billing ID:  C2355554-LRMS
  Billing Name:  A Technology Company Inc
  Billing Organization:  A Technology Company Inc
  Billing Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens
  Billing City:  Toronto
  Billing State/Province:  Ontario
  Billing Postal Code:  M4W 1P
  Billing Country:  CA
  Billing Phone:  +1.4169293695
  Billing Email:  [email-masked]
  Tech ID:  C2355554-LRMS
  Tech Name:  A Technology Company Inc
  Tech Organization:  A Technology Company Inc
  Tech Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens
  Tech City:  Toronto
  Tech State/Province:  Ontario
  Tech Postal Code:  M4W 1P
  Tech Country:  CA
  Tech Phone:  +1.4169293695
  Tech Email:  [email-masked]

  Who are Cadomain Registry?

  I found this, also run, it seems by Jason Hendeles:

  #N .cadomain.ca
  #S .CA Domain;
  #O Cadomain Registry, Inc.
  #C Jason Hendeles
  #E [email-masked]
  #T +1 416 410 3091
  #P Cadomain Registry, Inc., 23 McKayfield Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 4P6
  #R Automatically generated from a .CA domain registration form
  #W [email-masked] (UUCP Liaison); Wed Sep  1 03:55:28 -0400 1999
  #
  # cadomain.ca is a For-Profit Corporation, Federally Incorporated
  #
  # Domain Registration Services, Certificate of Incorporation
  # 365132-1
  #
  # received: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
  # approved: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
  #

  Ref/ URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/path/u.can.87

  And the Dotpower.com in Jason Hendeles e-mail here?
  Well, you find it through the WHOIS, which identifies
[email-masked] as Jason Hendeles:

  Domain Name: DOTPOWER.COM
     Registrar: A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. D/B/A NAMESYSTEM.COM
     Whois Server: whois.namesystem.com
     Referral URL: http://www.NameSystem.com
     Name Server: NS1.VRX.NET
     Name Server: NS2.VRX.NET
     Updated Date: 09-apr-2002

  Domain Name: dotpower.com

  Registrant:
    A Technology Company, Inc.  [email-masked]
    23 McKayfield Road
    Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
    CA
    Phone: 416-485-3888
    FAX: 416-485-6195

  Administrative Contact:
    Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]
    A Technology Company, Inc.
    53 McKayfield Road
    Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
    CA
    Phone: 416-485-3888
    FAX: 416-485-6195

  Technical Contact:
    Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]
    A Technology Company, Inc.
    53 McKayfield Road
    Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
    CA
    Phone: 416-485-3888
    FAX: 416-485-6195

  Billing Contact:
    Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]
    A Technology Company, Inc.
    53 McKayfield Road
    Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
    CA
    Phone: 416-485-3888
    FAX: 416-485-6195

  Record created: 1998-12-03 00:00:00
  Record expires: 2006-12-02 00:00:00

  Domain name servers:

    ns1.isdi.com     204.107.85.2
    ns2.isdi.com     204.107.85.100

  * * * * * * * * * * *

  So my question:

  Should a Registrar like ATech submit a tiny list and try to get names for
itself?

  Is this conduct an indication of standards we can expect from ICMRegistry
if it ever got a .XXX registry? Was Michael Palage aware how they set out to
get adult.info? Does he condone the practice of Registrars using their
"lists" in landrush situations to serve their own interests rather than the
public's?

  And why should the general public lose their fair chance to certain names,
just because registrars choose to take advantage of their privilege and
trusted positions?

  Is this a fair and equal way to distribute the DNS?

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2BFAC.6BF69F00
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Mr.=20
Henderson:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Which=20
"one" would you like me to answer?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I have=20
worked with Mr. Hendeles and his companies&nbsp;in the past, although I =
have not=20
received any compensation (consulting fees, salary, etc)&nbsp;from Mr. =
Hendeles=20
or his companies&nbsp;in over two years since the submission of ICM =
Registry's=20
proposal. I believe the randomized round-round mechanism used by both=20
Afilias&nbsp;(Sunrise, Land Rush and Land Rush 2)&nbsp;and NeuStar =
(Class IIB)=20
to be legal and one of several equitable ways to reallocate domain=20
names.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Take=20
the time and read ICM Registry's proposal. You will see that =
it&nbsp;proposes a=20
different allocation scheme, one which I also believe to be legal and =
equitable.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Based=20
upon my involvement with the ICANN Registrar Constituency I have learned =
that no=20
two registrar business models are a like. One of the reasons that ICANN =
was=20
created was to create competition at the registrar and registry =
level.&nbsp; As=20
to your open ended question about what is fair and what is not, I =
respectfully=20
choose not to step into that morass.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I am=20
sure as a father you have had your three girls say to you daddy that is =
not=20
fair. My three year old son has done the same on many occasions. When I =
was=20
growing up my dad told me on many occasions that life was not fair. As =
an=20
engineering undergrad I remember one exam where after four pages of =
complex=20
mathematical calculations, I transposed a number. I received zero points =
for the=20
problem despite clearly understanding the concept and the method to =
solve the=20
problem. When I went to the professor to seek partial credit for my =
work, he=20
told me that engineering is an exact science. If I was to build a bridge =
and=20
make the same mistake would I receive partial credit for the people that =
died=20
when the bridge collapsed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>After=20
practicing as an engineer for a number of years, I found it challenging =
to=20
switch gears from an exact science such as engineering to law which was =
not so=20
exact, at least US common law. The challenge of equitably reallocating =
domain=20
names either at the launch of the registry or in connection with =
deleting domain=20
name is not easy. Every approach has pros and cons. There is no one =
right answer=20
that I am aware of. Therefore, I believe that registries and registrars =
should=20
be allowed to allocate names in any manner which does not violate the =
law.=20
&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Best=20
regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Michael D. Palage</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>P.S.=20
These are my personal view points and do not necessarily reflect the =
position of=20
any client(s).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>P.P.S=20
Please be advised that I do have business relationship with various UK =
entities,=20
and that I consider your posting to this list to be made in the=20
UK.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>P.P.P.S I will be spending the rest of the day with my son =
watching=20
the&nbsp;American football playoff, so I will not have the time to =
engage in any=20
further dialog, cheers.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003>
<P><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked]=20
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Richard=20
  Henderson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:05 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Would Michael Palage care to =
answer this=20
  one?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3D"" size=3D+0>If Registrar R217 (who submitted the =
second=20
  shortest list in the .biz2B and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A =
Technology=20
  Company, Inc... </DIV>
  <P>then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, =
and&nbsp;I=20
  suspect that this list was closed to the public so that its own owners =
could=20
  benefit...=20
  <P>The practice of some registrars in submitting deliberately short =
lists to=20
  "queue-jump" in Landrush situations was demonstrated very clearly in =
.biz2B=20
  and .info LR2. The shorter your list, the sooner your name came up in =
the=20
  round-robin process. Some registrars like Signature Domains appear to =
have=20
  applied for a tiny number of domains just for themselves, to play the =
system.=20
  I believe Jason Hendeles was involved in the same thing.=20
  <P>Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ATech Registrars<BR>Jason Hendeles =
is=20
  Founder/CEO of ICM Registry Inc=20
  <P>Michael Palage of Afilias is/was linked to ICM as their Chief =
Policy=20
  Officer. He has confirmed this in his "Disclosure" in the Registrars =
Mailing=20
  List in December 2001.=20
  <P>ICM&nbsp;may have been hoping to run&nbsp;a new .XXX registry and =
gained=20
  adult.info in LR2, using their co-company ATech Registrars=20
  <P>This means that ATech submitted a tiny list (to gain advantage) and =

  submitted this application for its own co-company and co-owner=20
  <P>WHOIS details - showing Jason's e-mail:=20
  <P>Domain ID:&nbsp; D2264928-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Domain Name:&nbsp;=20
  ADULT.INFO&nbsp; <BR>Created On:&nbsp; 13-Jul-2002 19:16:49 UTC&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Expiration Date:&nbsp; 13-Jul-2004 19:16:49 UTC&nbsp; =
<BR>Sponsoring=20
  Registrar:&nbsp; A Technology Company dba Namesystem.com =
(R217-LRMS)&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Status:&nbsp; HOLD&nbsp; <BR>Status:&nbsp; OK&nbsp; <BR>Registrant =

  ID:&nbsp; C2355539-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Name:&nbsp; Cadomain =
RegistrY=20
  Inc&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Organization:&nbsp; Cadomain Registry, =
Inc&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Registrant Street1:&nbsp; 130 Adelaide Street West&nbsp; =
<BR>Registrant=20
  Street2:&nbsp; Suit 2500&nbsp; <BR>Registrant City:&nbsp; =
Toronto&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Registrant State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Registrant =
Postal=20
  Code:&nbsp; M4H 2M2&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Registrant Phone:&nbsp; +1.4168681080&nbsp; <BR>Registrant =
Email:&nbsp;=20
  [email-masked]&nbsp; <BR>Admin ID:&nbsp; C2355554-LRMS&nbsp; =
<BR>Admin=20
  Name:&nbsp; A Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Admin =
Organization:&nbsp; A=20
  Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Admin Street1:&nbsp; 3 Hawthorn =
Gardens&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Admin City:&nbsp; Toronto&nbsp; <BR>Admin State/Province:&nbsp;=20
  Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Admin Postal Code:&nbsp; M4W 1P&nbsp; <BR>Admin=20
  Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Admin Phone:&nbsp; +1.4169293695&nbsp; =
<BR>Admin=20
  Email:&nbsp; [email-masked]&nbsp; <BR>Billing ID:&nbsp;=20
  C2355554-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Billing Name:&nbsp; A Technology Company =
Inc&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Billing Organization:&nbsp; A Technology Company Inc&nbsp; =
<BR>Billing=20
  Street1:&nbsp; 3 Hawthorn Gardens&nbsp; <BR>Billing City:&nbsp; =
Toronto&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Billing State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Billing Postal =
Code:&nbsp;=20
  M4W 1P&nbsp; <BR>Billing Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Billing =
Phone:&nbsp;=20
  +1.4169293695&nbsp; <BR>Billing Email:&nbsp; =
[email-masked]&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Tech ID:&nbsp; C2355554-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Tech Name:&nbsp; A =
Technology=20
  Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Tech Organization:&nbsp; A Technology Company =
Inc&nbsp;=20
  <BR>Tech Street1:&nbsp; 3 Hawthorn Gardens&nbsp; <BR>Tech City:&nbsp;=20
  Toronto&nbsp; <BR>Tech State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Tech =
Postal=20
  Code:&nbsp; M4W 1P&nbsp; <BR>Tech Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Tech=20
  Phone:&nbsp; +1.4169293695&nbsp; <BR>Tech Email:&nbsp; =
[email-masked]=20
  <P>Who are Cadomain Registry?=20
  <P>I found this, also run, it seems by Jason Hendeles:=20
  <P>#N .cadomain.ca<BR>#S .CA Domain;<BR>#O Cadomain Registry, =
Inc.<BR>#C Jason=20
  Hendeles<BR>#E [email-masked]<BR>#T +1 416 410 3091<BR>#P Cadomain =

  Registry, Inc., 23 McKayfield Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 4P6<BR>#R=20
  Automatically generated from a .CA domain registration form<BR>#W=20
  [email-masked] (UUCP Liaison); Wed Sep&nbsp; 1 03:55:28 -0400 =

  1999<BR>#<BR># cadomain.ca is a For-Profit Corporation, Federally=20
  Incorporated<BR>#<BR># Domain Registration Services, Certificate of=20
  Incorporation<BR># 365132-1<BR>#<BR># received: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 =
20:00:00=20
  -0400<BR># approved: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400<BR>#=20
  <P>Ref/ URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/path/u.can.87=20
  <P>And the Dotpower.com in Jason Hendeles e-mail here?<BR>Well, you =
find it=20
  through the WHOIS, which identifies [email-masked] as Jason =
Hendeles:=20
  <P>Domain Name: DOTPOWER.COM<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Registrar: A TECHNOLOGY =
COMPANY,=20
  INC. D/B/A NAMESYSTEM.COM<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Whois Server:=20
  whois.namesystem.com<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Referral URL:=20
  http://www.NameSystem.com<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Name Server:=20
  NS1.VRX.NET<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Name Server: NS2.VRX.NET<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Updated=20
  Date: 09-apr-2002=20
  <P><BR>Domain Name: dotpower.com=20
  <P>Registrant:<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.&nbsp;=20
  [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; 23 McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; Toronto,=20
  Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp; CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: =
416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp;=20
  FAX: 416-485-6195=20
  <P>Administrative Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp;=20
  [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; =
53=20
  McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp;=20
  CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: 416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
  <P>Technical Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp;=20
  [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; =
53=20
  McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp;=20
  CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: 416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
  <P>Billing Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp; =
[email-masked]=20
  <BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; 53 McKayfield =
Road<BR>&nbsp;=20
  Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp; CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone:=20
  416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
  <P>Record created: 1998-12-03 00:00:00<BR>Record expires: 2006-12-02 =
00:00:00=20
  <P>Domain name servers:=20
  <P>&nbsp; ns1.isdi.com&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 204.107.85.2 <BR>&nbsp;=20
  ns2.isdi.com&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 204.107.85.100=20
  <P>* * * * * * * * * * *=20
  <P>So my question:=20
  <P>Should a Registrar like ATech submit a tiny list and try to get =
names for=20
  itself?=20
  <P>Is this conduct an indication of standards we can expect from =
ICMRegistry=20
  if it&nbsp;ever got&nbsp;a .XXX registry? Was Michael Palage =
aware&nbsp;how=20
  they set out to get adult.info? Does he condone the practice of =
Registrars=20
  using their "lists" in landrush situations to serve their own =
interests rather=20
  than the public's?=20
  <P>And why should the general public lose their fair chance to certain =
names,=20
  just because registrars choose to take advantage of their privilege =
and=20
  trusted positions?=20
  <P>Is this a fair and equal way to distribute the=20
DNS?</P></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C2BFAC.6BF69F00--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:36:22 -0000
From: "Richard Henderson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C2BFD0.85282A60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HelpOK - thanks for the reply which people can read as they wish.

As a former Prison Governor, I'm well aware of the unfairness in life, =
though I had a responsibility to maintain as much fairness as possible, =
within the powers granted me. Naturally I didn't always get things =
right. You say: "I believe that registries and registrars should be =
allowed to allocate names in any manner which does not violate the law."

I take the view that ICANN has been instructed to ensure the fair =
distribution of the DNS. Simply "not breaking the law" does not ensure =
that. ICANN has a responsibility invested in it by DoC to develop =
Agreements which ensure name allocation is as fair a way as possible. =
One such step would be to remove the incentive to registrars to submit =
short lists in landrush situations. A commonsense solution would be to =
require each registrar to submit at least 1000 applications in a =
landrush (any number of these could be BLANK applications). This would =
then mean that the registrar who only submitted 10 applications for =
themselves would have no more chance than the registrar who opened their =
list to the general public and submitted 1000 applications for them. =
Nearly everyone would then have the same chance.

It would level out the playingfield, and prevent this particular kind of =
insider "gaming" of the system.

Look at the .biz2B and Signature Domains. Their only registrations in =
that particular landrush were 9 registrations for their own partner, =
Joshua Blacker. This can be seen in the Whois. It is also on my database =
of all the .biz2B registrations. And I phoned Joshua Blacker and spoke =
to him and he admitted all this. I have this "on record". It appears to =
me that Mr Hendeles played the same game in .info LR2. Is this "the fair =
distribution of the DNS"?

Why should the general public be "gamed" by queue-jumping registrars who =
obstruct the fair distribution of the DNS?

It is within ICANN's power - through the Agreements it develops - to =
pre-empt this kind of insider benefit. I take the view that ICANN, =
Registries, and Registrars, should all have a primary commitment to the =
general public who they serve. Most registrars do. They want to promote =
a culture of fairness. But I believe you have been associated with =
people who have failed the system and taken advantage of ICANN's weak =
and unenforced Agreements.

You are well aware (from your "inside" view of Afilias) that entities =
within Afilias were closely associated with the abuse of process in the =
.info names release and yet you seem to support the laissez-faire =
"anything goes" attitude. If you'd care to defend Afilias, I'd be =
delighted to take you on head to head in this public forum.

However, I have already noted (as have others) that neither ICANN, nor =
Hal Lubsen, nor yourself have had the openness or courage to discuss the =
very specific details of how Agreements and rules were broken in that =
case. The policy has been to "say nothing" and to avoid discussing =
serious concerns and examples of abuse of process.

It is not good enough to say "life is unfair" therefore let people do =
what they want and "tough" on those who don't like it.

I do not agree at all that Registries and registrars should have a free =
hand in how they allocate names. Afilias knew in advance of LR2 that the =
same "unfair" short lists that occurred in .biz2B would recur in their =
second landrush... but they took the view you seem to me to be =
supporting... that registrars should be able to game the system if they =
chose. As you well know, this industry lacks a key Code of Conduct and =
depends on registrars own sense of fairness or lack of it.

That is wholly inadequate, in terms of protecting the consumer and =
serving the consumer. In the absence of such a Code, ICANN should write =
in much clearer constraints in their Agreements. ICANN should also take =
sanctions (such as removal of accreditation) against entities that break =
the rules.

One more thing : there is an appalling lack of openness and =
responsiveness on the part of ICANN (and indeed, some of the =
Registries). That has to change too. Do you want a rogue industry or an =
equitable one? I appreciate the fact that you responded to my post, and =
responded in a human way. But many many questions remain unanswered and =
both ICANN and Afilias have shown absolutely NO intention of responding =
to them at all. They prefer to hide and suppress open and detailed =
dialogue.

You say: "I believe that registries and registrars should be allowed to =
allocate names in any manner which does not violate the law."

I regard that as abdication of responsibility.

I've been with my son today too (watching him play two games of football =
in the pouring rain). Hope you enjoyed your football as much as I =
enjoyed mine.

Richard H

PS: To avoid any confusion of meaning, I have re-drafted one sentence in =
my previous letter.
Where I wrote: "If Registrar R217 (who submitted the second shortest =
list in the .biz2B and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A Technology =
Company, Inc... then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of =
Afilias, and I suspect that this list was closed to the public so that =
its own owners could benefit..."  I will clarify this loosely-phrased =
remark as follows: "Registrar R217 was, I believe, ATech / A Technology =
Company, Inc. Michael Palage of Afilias has had close connections with =
this company. I suspect that ATech's list was closed to the public so =
that its own owners could benefit." I was not inferring that you were =
involved in any list submissions for ATech, Michael, but I was asking =
you to clarify if you WERE.=20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Michael D. Palage=20
  To: Richard Henderson ; [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

  Mr. Henderson:
  =20
  Which "one" would you like me to answer?
  =20
  I have worked with Mr. Hendeles and his companies in the past, =
although I have not received any compensation (consulting fees, salary, =
etc) from Mr. Hendeles or his companies in over two years since the =
submission of ICM Registry's proposal. I believe the randomized =
round-round mechanism used by both Afilias (Sunrise, Land Rush and Land =
Rush 2) and NeuStar (Class IIB) to be legal and one of several equitable =
ways to reallocate domain names.
  =20
  Take the time and read ICM Registry's proposal. You will see that it =
proposes a different allocation scheme, one which I also believe to be =
legal and equitable.=20
  =20
  Based upon my involvement with the ICANN Registrar Constituency I have =
learned that no two registrar business models are a like. One of the =
reasons that ICANN was created was to create competition at the =
registrar and registry level.  As to your open ended question about what =
is fair and what is not, I respectfully choose not to step into that =
morass.
  =20
  I am sure as a father you have had your three girls say to you daddy =
that is not fair. My three year old son has done the same on many =
occasions. When I was growing up my dad told me on many occasions that =
life was not fair. As an engineering undergrad I remember one exam where =
after four pages of complex mathematical calculations, I transposed a =
number. I received zero points for the problem despite clearly =
understanding the concept and the method to solve the problem. When I =
went to the professor to seek partial credit for my work, he told me =
that engineering is an exact science. If I was to build a bridge and =
make the same mistake would I receive partial credit for the people that =
died when the bridge collapsed.
  =20
  After practicing as an engineer for a number of years, I found it =
challenging to switch gears from an exact science such as engineering to =
law which was not so exact, at least US common law. The challenge of =
equitably reallocating domain names either at the launch of the registry =
or in connection with deleting domain name is not easy. Every approach =
has pros and cons. There is no one right answer that I am aware of. =
Therefore, I believe that registries and registrars should be allowed to =
allocate names in any manner which does not violate the law. =20
  =20
  Best regards,
  =20
  Michael D. Palage
  =20
  P.S. These are my personal view points and do not necessarily reflect =
the position of any client(s).
  =20
  P.P.S Please be advised that I do have business relationship with =
various UK entities, and that I consider your posting to this list to be =
made in the UK.
  =20
  P.P.P.S I will be spending the rest of the day with my son watching =
the American football playoff, so I will not have the time to engage in =
any further dialog, cheers.
  =20
  =20
  =20
  =20
  =20
  =20
  =20

  =20
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of =
Richard Henderson
    Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:05 AM
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: [ga] Would Michael Palage care to answer this one?

    =20
    =20
    If Registrar R217 (who submitted the second shortest list in the =
.biz2B and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A Technology Company, Inc...=20
    then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, and I =
suspect that this list was closed to the public so that its own owners =
could benefit...=20

    The practice of some registrars in submitting deliberately short =
lists to "queue-jump" in Landrush situations was demonstrated very =
clearly in .biz2B and .info LR2. The shorter your list, the sooner your =
name came up in the round-robin process. Some registrars like Signature =
Domains appear to have applied for a tiny number of domains just for =
themselves, to play the system. I believe Jason Hendeles was involved in =
the same thing.=20

    Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ATech Registrars
    Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ICM Registry Inc=20

    Michael Palage of Afilias is/was linked to ICM as their Chief Policy =
Officer. He has confirmed this in his "Disclosure" in the Registrars =
Mailing List in December 2001.=20

    ICM may have been hoping to run a new .XXX registry and gained =
adult.info in LR2, using their co-company ATech Registrars=20

    This means that ATech submitted a tiny list (to gain advantage) and =
submitted this application for its own co-company and co-owner=20

    WHOIS details - showing Jason's e-mail:=20

    Domain ID:  D2264928-LRMS =20
    Domain Name:  ADULT.INFO =20
    Created On:  13-Jul-2002 19:16:49 UTC =20
    Expiration Date:  13-Jul-2004 19:16:49 UTC =20
    Sponsoring Registrar:  A Technology Company dba Namesystem.com =
(R217-LRMS) =20
    Status:  HOLD =20
    Status:  OK =20
    Registrant ID:  C2355539-LRMS =20
    Registrant Name:  Cadomain RegistrY Inc =20
    Registrant Organization:  Cadomain Registry, Inc =20
    Registrant Street1:  130 Adelaide Street West =20
    Registrant Street2:  Suit 2500 =20
    Registrant City:  Toronto =20
    Registrant State/Province:  Ontario =20
    Registrant Postal Code:  M4H 2M2 =20
    Registrant Country:  CA =20
    Registrant Phone:  +1.4168681080 =20
    Registrant Email:  [email-masked] =20
    Admin ID:  C2355554-LRMS =20
    Admin Name:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Admin Organization:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Admin Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens =20
    Admin City:  Toronto =20
    Admin State/Province:  Ontario =20
    Admin Postal Code:  M4W 1P =20
    Admin Country:  CA =20
    Admin Phone:  +1.4169293695 =20
    Admin Email:  [email-masked] =20
    Billing ID:  C2355554-LRMS =20
    Billing Name:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Billing Organization:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Billing Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens =20
    Billing City:  Toronto =20
    Billing State/Province:  Ontario =20
    Billing Postal Code:  M4W 1P =20
    Billing Country:  CA =20
    Billing Phone:  +1.4169293695 =20
    Billing Email:  [email-masked] =20
    Tech ID:  C2355554-LRMS =20
    Tech Name:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Tech Organization:  A Technology Company Inc =20
    Tech Street1:  3 Hawthorn Gardens =20
    Tech City:  Toronto =20
    Tech State/Province:  Ontario =20
    Tech Postal Code:  M4W 1P =20
    Tech Country:  CA =20
    Tech Phone:  +1.4169293695 =20
    Tech Email:  [email-masked]=20

    Who are Cadomain Registry?=20

    I found this, also run, it seems by Jason Hendeles:=20

    #N .cadomain.ca
    #S .CA Domain;
    #O Cadomain Registry, Inc.
    #C Jason Hendeles
    #E [email-masked]
    #T +1 416 410 3091
    #P Cadomain Registry, Inc., 23 McKayfield Road, Toronto, Ontario, =
M4J 4P6
    #R Automatically generated from a .CA domain registration form
    #W [email-masked] (UUCP Liaison); Wed Sep  1 03:55:28 -0400 =
1999
    #
    # cadomain.ca is a For-Profit Corporation, Federally Incorporated
    #
    # Domain Registration Services, Certificate of Incorporation
    # 365132-1
    #
    # received: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
    # approved: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400
    #=20

    Ref/ URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/path/u.can.87=20

    And the Dotpower.com in Jason Hendeles e-mail here?
    Well, you find it through the WHOIS, which identifies =
[email-masked] as Jason Hendeles:=20

    Domain Name: DOTPOWER.COM
       Registrar: A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. D/B/A NAMESYSTEM.COM
       Whois Server: whois.namesystem.com
       Referral URL: http://www.NameSystem.com
       Name Server: NS1.VRX.NET
       Name Server: NS2.VRX.NET
       Updated Date: 09-apr-2002=20

    Domain Name: dotpower.com=20

    Registrant:
      A Technology Company, Inc.  [email-masked]
      23 McKayfield Road
      Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
      CA
      Phone: 416-485-3888
      FAX: 416-485-6195=20

    Administrative Contact:
      Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]
      A Technology Company, Inc.
      53 McKayfield Road
      Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
      CA
      Phone: 416-485-3888
      FAX: 416-485-6195=20

    Technical Contact:
      Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]
      A Technology Company, Inc.
      53 McKayfield Road
      Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
      CA
      Phone: 416-485-3888
      FAX: 416-485-6195=20

    Billing Contact:
      Hendeles, Jason  [email-masked]=20
      A Technology Company, Inc.
      53 McKayfield Road
      Toronto, Ontario  M4J 4P6
      CA
      Phone: 416-485-3888
      FAX: 416-485-6195=20

    Record created: 1998-12-03 00:00:00
    Record expires: 2006-12-02 00:00:00=20

    Domain name servers:=20

      ns1.isdi.com     204.107.85.2=20
      ns2.isdi.com     204.107.85.100=20

    * * * * * * * * * * *=20

    So my question:=20

    Should a Registrar like ATech submit a tiny list and try to get =
names for itself?=20

    Is this conduct an indication of standards we can expect from =
ICMRegistry if it ever got a .XXX registry? Was Michael Palage aware how =
they set out to get adult.info? Does he condone the practice of =
Registrars using their "lists" in landrush situations to serve their own =
interests rather than the public's?=20

    And why should the general public lose their fair chance to certain =
names, just because registrars choose to take advantage of their =
privilege and trusted positions?=20

    Is this a fair and equal way to distribute the DNS?

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C2BFD0.85282A60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Help</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><BASE=20
href=3Dfile://C:\WINDOWS\>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>OK - thanks for the reply which people =
can read as=20
they wish.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As a former Prison Governor, I'm well =
aware of the=20
unfairness in life, though I had a responsibility to maintain as much =
fairness=20
as possible, within the powers granted me. Naturally I didn't always get =
things=20
right. You say: "I believe that registries and registrars should be =
allowed to=20
allocate names in any manner which does not violate the =
law."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I take the view that ICANN has been =
instructed to=20
ensure the fair distribution of the DNS. Simply "not breaking the law" =
does not=20
ensure that. ICANN has a responsibility invested in it by DoC to develop =

Agreements which ensure name allocation is as fair a way as possible. =
One such=20
step would be to remove the incentive to registrars to submit short =
lists in=20
landrush situations. A commonsense solution would be to require each =
registrar=20
to submit at least 1000&nbsp;applications in a landrush (any number of =
these=20
could be BLANK applications). This would then mean that the registrar =
who only=20
submitted 10 applications for themselves would have no more chance than =
the=20
registrar who opened their list to the general public and submitted 1000 =

applications for them. Nearly everyone would then have the same=20
chance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It would level out the playingfield, =
and prevent=20
this particular kind of insider "gaming" of the system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Look at the .biz2B and Signature =
Domains. Their=20
only registrations in that particular landrush were 9 registrations for =
their=20
own partner, Joshua Blacker. This can be seen in the Whois. It is also =
on my=20
database of all the .biz2B registrations. And I phoned Joshua Blacker =
and spoke=20
to him and he admitted all this. I have this "on record". It appears to =
me that=20
Mr Hendeles played the same game in .info LR2. Is this "the fair =
distribution of=20
the DNS"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why should the general public be =
"gamed" by=20
queue-jumping registrars who obstruct the fair distribution of the=20
DNS?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is within ICANN's power - through =
the Agreements=20
it develops - to pre-empt this kind of insider benefit. I take the view =
that=20
ICANN, Registries, and Registrars, should all have a primary commitment =
to the=20
general public who they serve. Most registrars do. They want to promote =
a=20
culture of fairness. But I believe you have been associated with people =
who have=20
failed the system and taken advantage of ICANN's weak and unenforced=20
Agreements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are well aware (from your "inside" =
view of=20
Afilias) that entities within Afilias were closely associated with the =
abuse of=20
process in the .info names release and yet you seem to support the =
laissez-faire=20
"anything goes" attitude.</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If =
you'd care to=20
defend Afilias, I'd be delighted to take you on head to head in this =
public=20
forum.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>However, I have already noted (as have =
others) that=20
neither ICANN, nor Hal Lubsen, nor yourself have had the openness or =
courage to=20
discuss the very specific details of how Agreements and rules were =
broken in=20
that case. The policy has been to "say nothing" and to avoid discussing =
serious=20
concerns and examples of abuse of process.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It is not good enough to say "life is =
unfair"=20
therefore let people do what they want and "tough" on those who don't =
like=20
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I&nbsp;do not agree at all that =
Registries and=20
registrars should have a free hand in how they allocate names. Afilias =
knew in=20
advance&nbsp;of LR2 that the same "unfair" short lists that occurred in =
.biz2B=20
would recur in their second landrush... but they took&nbsp;the view you =
seem to=20
me to be supporting... that&nbsp;registrars should be able to game the =
system if=20
they chose.&nbsp;As you well know,&nbsp;this industry lacks a key Code =
of=20
Conduct and depends on registrars own sense of fairness or lack of=20
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That is wholly inadequate,&nbsp;in =
terms of=20
protecting the consumer and&nbsp;serving the consumer. In the absence of =
such a=20
Code, ICANN should&nbsp;write in&nbsp;much clearer constraints in their=20
Agreements. ICANN should also take sanctions (such as removal of =
accreditation)=20
against entities that break the rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>One more thing : there is an appalling =
lack of=20
openness and responsiveness on the part of ICANN (and indeed, some of =
the=20
Registries). That has to change too. Do you want a rogue industry or an=20
equitable one?</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I appreciate the =
fact that=20
you responded to my post, and responded in a human way. But many many =
questions=20
remain unanswered and both ICANN and Afilias have shown absolutely NO =
intention=20
of responding to them at all. They prefer to hide and suppress open and =
detailed=20
dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You say: "I believe that registries and =
registrars=20
should be allowed to allocate names in any manner which does not violate =
the=20
law."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I regard that as abdication of=20
responsibility.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've been with my son today too =
(watching him play=20
two games of football in the pouring rain). Hope you enjoyed your =
football as=20
much as I enjoyed mine.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Richard H</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>PS: To avoid any confusion of meaning, =
I have=20
re-drafted one sentence in my previous letter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Where I wrote: "<FONT face=3D"" =
size=3D+0><FONT=20
size=3D2>If Registrar R217 (who submitted the second shortest list in =
the .biz2B=20
and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A Technology Company, Inc... =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, =
and&nbsp;I=20
suspect that this list was closed to the public so that its own owners =
could=20
benefit..."</FONT>&nbsp;</FONT> I will clarify this loosely-phrased =
remark as=20
follows:&nbsp;"Registrar R217 was, I believe, ATech / A Technology =
Company,=20
Inc.&nbsp;Michael Palage of Afilias has had close connections with this =
company.=20
I suspect&nbsp;that ATech's list was closed to the public so that its =
own owners=20
could benefit." I was not inferring that you were involved in&nbsp;any =
list=20
submissions for ATech, Michael, but I was asking you to clarify if you =
WERE.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" =
title=[email-masked]>Michael D.=20
  Palage</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
  title=[email-masked]>Richard Henderson</A> ; <A=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" title=[email-masked]>[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 19, 2003 =
4:17=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Would Michael =
Palage=20
  care to answer this one?</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>Mr.=20
  Henderson:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>Which "one" would you like me to answer?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>I=20
  have worked with Mr. Hendeles and his companies&nbsp;in the past, =
although I=20
  have not received any compensation (consulting fees, salary, =
etc)&nbsp;from=20
  Mr. Hendeles or his companies&nbsp;in over two years since the =
submission of=20
  ICM Registry's proposal. I believe the randomized round-round =
mechanism used=20
  by both Afilias&nbsp;(Sunrise, Land Rush and Land Rush 2)&nbsp;and =
NeuStar=20
  (Class IIB) to be legal and one of several equitable ways to =
reallocate domain=20
  names.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>Take=20
  the time and read ICM Registry's proposal. You will see that =
it&nbsp;proposes=20
  a different allocation scheme, one which I also believe to be legal =
and=20
  equitable. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>Based upon my involvement with the ICANN Registrar =
Constituency I have=20
  learned that no two registrar business models are a like. One of the =
reasons=20
  that ICANN was created was to create competition at the registrar and =
registry=20
  level.&nbsp; As to your open ended question about what is fair and =
what is=20
  not, I respectfully choose not to step into that =
morass.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>I am=20
  sure as a father you have had your three girls say to you daddy that =
is not=20
  fair. My three year old son has done the same on many occasions. When =
I was=20
  growing up my dad told me on many occasions that life was not fair. As =
an=20
  engineering undergrad I remember one exam where after four pages of =
complex=20
  mathematical calculations, I transposed a number. I received zero =
points for=20
  the problem despite clearly understanding the concept and the method =
to solve=20
  the problem. When I went to the professor to seek partial credit for =
my work,=20
  he told me that engineering is an exact science. If I was to build a =
bridge=20
  and make the same mistake would I receive partial credit for the =
people that=20
  died when the bridge collapsed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>After practicing as an engineer for a number of years, I =
found it=20
  challenging to switch gears from an exact science such as engineering =
to law=20
  which was not so exact, at least US common law. The challenge of =
equitably=20
  reallocating domain names either at the launch of the registry or in=20
  connection with deleting domain name is not easy. Every approach has =
pros and=20
  cons. There is no one right answer that I am aware of. Therefore, I =
believe=20
  that registries and registrars should be allowed to allocate names in =
any=20
  manner which does not violate the law. &nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>Best=20
  regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>Michael D. Palage</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial size=3D2>P.S.=20
  These are my personal view points and do not necessarily reflect the =
position=20
  of any client(s).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>P.P.S Please be advised that I do have business relationship =
with=20
  various UK entities, and that I consider your posting to this list to =
be made=20
  in the UK.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2>P.P.P.S I will be spending the rest of the day with my son =
watching=20
  the&nbsp;American football playoff, so I will not have the time to =
engage in=20
  any further dialog, cheers.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003>
  <P><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
  class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</P></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D850061515-19012003><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
  style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
    <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
    size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
[email-masked]=20
    [mailto:[email-masked]]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Richard=20
    Henderson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:05 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
    [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] Would Michael Palage care to =
answer this=20
    one?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3D"" size=3D+0>If Registrar R217 (who submitted the =
second=20
    shortest list in the .biz2B and got 6 registrations) is ATech / A =
Technology=20
    Company, Inc... </DIV>
    <P>then there is a strong link with Michael Palage of Afilias, =
and&nbsp;I=20
    suspect that this list was closed to the public so that its own =
owners could=20
    benefit...=20
    <P>The practice of some registrars in submitting deliberately short =
lists to=20
    "queue-jump" in Landrush situations was demonstrated very clearly in =
.biz2B=20
    and .info LR2. The shorter your list, the sooner your name came up =
in the=20
    round-robin process. Some registrars like Signature Domains appear =
to have=20
    applied for a tiny number of domains just for themselves, to play =
the=20
    system. I believe Jason Hendeles was involved in the same thing.=20
    <P>Jason Hendeles is Founder/CEO of ATech Registrars<BR>Jason =
Hendeles is=20
    Founder/CEO of ICM Registry Inc=20
    <P>Michael Palage of Afilias is/was linked to ICM as their Chief =
Policy=20
    Officer. He has confirmed this in his "Disclosure" in the Registrars =
Mailing=20
    List in December 2001.=20
    <P>ICM&nbsp;may have been hoping to run&nbsp;a new .XXX registry and =
gained=20
    adult.info in LR2, using their co-company ATech Registrars=20
    <P>This means that ATech submitted a tiny list (to gain advantage) =
and=20
    submitted this application for its own co-company and co-owner=20
    <P>WHOIS details - showing Jason's e-mail:=20
    <P>Domain ID:&nbsp; D2264928-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Domain Name:&nbsp;=20
    ADULT.INFO&nbsp; <BR>Created On:&nbsp; 13-Jul-2002 19:16:49 =
UTC&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Expiration Date:&nbsp; 13-Jul-2004 19:16:49 UTC&nbsp; =
<BR>Sponsoring=20
    Registrar:&nbsp; A Technology Company dba Namesystem.com =
(R217-LRMS)&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Status:&nbsp; HOLD&nbsp; <BR>Status:&nbsp; OK&nbsp; =
<BR>Registrant=20
    ID:&nbsp; C2355539-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Name:&nbsp; Cadomain =
RegistrY=20
    Inc&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Organization:&nbsp; Cadomain Registry, =
Inc&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Registrant Street1:&nbsp; 130 Adelaide Street West&nbsp; =
<BR>Registrant=20
    Street2:&nbsp; Suit 2500&nbsp; <BR>Registrant City:&nbsp; =
Toronto&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Registrant State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Registrant =
Postal=20
    Code:&nbsp; M4H 2M2&nbsp; <BR>Registrant Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Registrant Phone:&nbsp; +1.4168681080&nbsp; <BR>Registrant =
Email:&nbsp;=20
    [email-masked]&nbsp; <BR>Admin ID:&nbsp; C2355554-LRMS&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Admin Name:&nbsp; A Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Admin=20
    Organization:&nbsp; A Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Admin =
Street1:&nbsp;=20
    3 Hawthorn Gardens&nbsp; <BR>Admin City:&nbsp; Toronto&nbsp; =
<BR>Admin=20
    State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Admin Postal Code:&nbsp; M4W =

    1P&nbsp; <BR>Admin Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Admin Phone:&nbsp;=20
    +1.4169293695&nbsp; <BR>Admin Email:&nbsp; =
[email-masked]&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Billing ID:&nbsp; C2355554-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Billing Name:&nbsp; A=20
    Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Billing Organization:&nbsp; A =
Technology=20
    Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Billing Street1:&nbsp; 3 Hawthorn =
Gardens&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Billing City:&nbsp; Toronto&nbsp; <BR>Billing =
State/Province:&nbsp;=20
    Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Billing Postal Code:&nbsp; M4W 1P&nbsp; =
<BR>Billing=20
    Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Billing Phone:&nbsp; +1.4169293695&nbsp; =

    <BR>Billing Email:&nbsp; [email-masked]&nbsp; <BR>Tech =
ID:&nbsp;=20
    C2355554-LRMS&nbsp; <BR>Tech Name:&nbsp; A Technology Company =
Inc&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Tech Organization:&nbsp; A Technology Company Inc&nbsp; <BR>Tech =

    Street1:&nbsp; 3 Hawthorn Gardens&nbsp; <BR>Tech City:&nbsp; =
Toronto&nbsp;=20
    <BR>Tech State/Province:&nbsp; Ontario&nbsp; <BR>Tech Postal =
Code:&nbsp; M4W=20
    1P&nbsp; <BR>Tech Country:&nbsp; CA&nbsp; <BR>Tech Phone:&nbsp;=20
    +1.4169293695&nbsp; <BR>Tech Email:&nbsp; [email-masked]=20
    <P>Who are Cadomain Registry?=20
    <P>I found this, also run, it seems by Jason Hendeles:=20
    <P>#N .cadomain.ca<BR>#S .CA Domain;<BR>#O Cadomain Registry, =
Inc.<BR>#C=20
    Jason Hendeles<BR>#E [email-masked]<BR>#T +1 416 410 3091<BR>#P =
Cadomain=20
    Registry, Inc., 23 McKayfield Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 4P6<BR>#R=20
    Automatically generated from a .CA domain registration form<BR>#W=20
    [email-masked] (UUCP Liaison); Wed Sep&nbsp; 1 03:55:28 =
- -0400=20
    1999<BR>#<BR># cadomain.ca is a For-Profit Corporation, Federally=20
    Incorporated<BR>#<BR># Domain Registration Services, Certificate of=20
    Incorporation<BR># 365132-1<BR>#<BR># received: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 =
20:00:00=20
    -0400<BR># approved: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:00:00 -0400<BR>#=20
    <P>Ref/ URL: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/path/u.can.87=20
    <P>And the Dotpower.com in Jason Hendeles e-mail here?<BR>Well, you =
find it=20
    through the WHOIS, which identifies [email-masked] as Jason =
Hendeles:=20

    <P>Domain Name: DOTPOWER.COM<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Registrar: A TECHNOLOGY =

    COMPANY, INC. D/B/A NAMESYSTEM.COM<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Whois Server:=20
    whois.namesystem.com<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Referral URL:=20
    http://www.NameSystem.com<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Name Server:=20
    NS1.VRX.NET<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Name Server: NS2.VRX.NET<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Updated=20
    Date: 09-apr-2002=20
    <P><BR>Domain Name: dotpower.com=20
    <P>Registrant:<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.&nbsp;=20
    [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; 23 McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; =
Toronto,=20
    Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp; CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: =
416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp;=20
    FAX: 416-485-6195=20
    <P>Administrative Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp;=20
    [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; =
53=20
    McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp;=20
    CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: 416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
    <P>Technical Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp;=20
    [email-masked]<BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; =
53=20
    McKayfield Road<BR>&nbsp; Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp;=20
    CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone: 416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
    <P>Billing Contact:<BR>&nbsp; Hendeles, Jason&nbsp; =
[email-masked]=20
    <BR>&nbsp; A Technology Company, Inc.<BR>&nbsp; 53 McKayfield =
Road<BR>&nbsp;=20
    Toronto, Ontario&nbsp; M4J 4P6<BR>&nbsp; CA<BR>&nbsp; Phone:=20
    416-485-3888<BR>&nbsp; FAX: 416-485-6195=20
    <P>Record created: 1998-12-03 00:00:00<BR>Record expires: 2006-12-02 =

    00:00:00=20
    <P>Domain name servers:=20
    <P>&nbsp; ns1.isdi.com&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 204.107.85.2 <BR>&nbsp;=20
    ns2.isdi.com&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 204.107.85.100=20
    <P>* * * * * * * * * * *=20
    <P>So my question:=20
    <P>Should a Registrar like ATech submit a tiny list and try to get =
names for=20
    itself?=20
    <P>Is this conduct an indication of standards we can expect from =
ICMRegistry=20
    if it&nbsp;ever got&nbsp;a .XXX registry? Was Michael Palage =
aware&nbsp;how=20
    they set out to get adult.info? Does he condone the practice of =
Registrars=20
    using their "lists" in landrush situations to serve their own =
interests=20
    rather than the public's?=20
    <P>And why should the general public lose their fair chance to =
certain=20
    names, just because registrars choose to take advantage of their =
privilege=20
    and trusted positions?=20
    <P>Is this a fair and equal way to distribute the=20
DNS?</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C2BFD0.85282A60--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1560
*************************