<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and funding.
Keep your tent unfolded, Ken. The job of this WG is to review the
structure, processes and functioning of the DNSO; that's a big enough job
for anyone. I trust that YJ and whoever is elected as the co-chair of the
WG will be able to enforce that limitation.
Jon
At 01:51 PM 1/2/2001 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>if your saying that that is the direction this working group intends to go
>then i STRONGLY BELIEVE that the group is straying way off direction and
>frankly feel that the majority of the names council members would most
>probably agree with me here.
>
>i am most anxious to hear from YJ, roberto, joop, herald , jonathan and
>others as to whether they feel this is the direction they wish to move in.
>
>if this be so, then i will fold up my little tent and wend my way into the
>night, disappointed that i have been the victim of serious
>misrepresentations.
>
>ken stubbs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
>Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and funding.
>
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > I merely forwarded a message at the request of another List member who
>accidentally sent it to me twice.
> >
> > As for what we're to concentrate on first, I think the most primary issue,
>is indeed the issue of the conflation of domains with trademarks. It seems
>to me
> > that Jon Postel was not amiss in immediately addressing this issue in his
>original Internet Draft. In fact, it's the very first issue he addressed!
>Now, we can
> > sit here and try to deflect this issue in any way we choose, but the fact
>remains that this is one of the PRIMARY issues of concern for many members
>of
> > this WG List, not to mention the @large membership. To believe that this
>issue should be overlooked or put off for another time or WG is to attempt
>to
> > whitewash a very dirty issue. Everything that relates to this issue is
>far from having been settled or even discussed adequately by ALL
>stakeholders. I
> > have read most of the archived transcripts of the other DNSO WGs and the
>issue has been prevalent throughout! WHEN would be appropriate for us to
> > substantively tackle these matters? Perhaps when it's convenient for the
>WIPO people?
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > Hermes Network, Inc.
> >
> > 1/2/01 1:23:01 PM, "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net> wrote:
> >
> > >sotiris....
> > >
> > >this a perfect example of what i was talking about earlier. here is
>someone
> > >with a beef looking for any "forum" for their complaints and, frankly,
>the
> > >the only thing this kind of posting wil accomplish is starting a
>thread
> > >that will take this group "way off focus".
> > >
> > >what do we discuss next ? cybersquatting, cyperpiracy, the UDRP,
>hoarding,
> > >????
> > >
> > >simple formula here ....... " loss of focus = loss of creditability "
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > >To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:34 PM
> > >Subject: Fwd: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and
>funding.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic asked me to forward the following message
>as
> > >he sent it to me twice:
> > >>
> > >> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> > >> From: "Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> > >> To: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and
> > >funding.
> > >> Date: 1/2/01 12:14:08 PM
> > >>
> > >> As one member of this list stated, he owns over 300 domain names. How
>much
> > >> has he got invested? Add the figures. Where does everyone think the
> > >> Registrars GET the money they contribute? Simple math. Just that one
> > >member
> > >> has contributed significantly more than 10-25 dollars to the process
>and
> > >> continues to do so through renewals even with Registrars being allowed
>to
> > >> pull every dirty trick in the business. Hoarding Expired Domain Names
>to
> > >> sell them for more than mere Registration, using fronts to register
>names
> > >> then adding an additional charge to move the name to another registrar
> > >which
> > >> is still owned by the same registrar, and signing deals with companies
> > >like
> > >> SnapNames to give them first shot at expired names before the general
> > >public
> > >> in return for a share of the profits SnapNames makes on the expired
>names.
> > >> If anyone should pay more of the associated fees, look to the
>Registrars
> > >to
> > >> provide it especially when they are allowed to be as unethical as they
> > >want
> > >> to be with no reprimands forthcoming from ICANN. They ignore the
>problem
> > >as
> > >> a way to endorse it..
> > >>
> > >> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > >> To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:59 AM
> > >> Subject: Fwd: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and
> > >funding.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > 1/2/01 8:42:51 AM, "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >At-Large could charge "dues" of, say $ 10 to $ 25 per year.
> > >> > >Other groups could get commercial donors or sponsorships, with the
> > >> > >sponsor(s) getting a logo and credit on that group's web page.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Representation with taxation, Everybody pays to play.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Mr. deBlanc,
> > >> >
> > >> > As has already been pointed out by myself and others, Name Holders
>ARE
> > >the
> > >> ones providing the FUNDS! Name Holders are the ones buying
> > >> > DOMAINS! I think that constituency has already paid its fair share.
> > >What
> > >> about WIPO and certain others?
> > >> >
> > >> > I believe the issue of representation is a little more serious than a
> > >game
> > >> people "play".
> > >> >
> > >> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >> > Hermes Network, Inc.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------- End of forwarded message --------
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > >> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|