<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and funding.
Dear Sotiris,
if you permit me a comparison so you better understand what this WG-Review
is about. And what we want to do.
Let assume you want to drive your familly to seashore.
The kids will enjoy a lot of dreams, ideas, problems about their bathing
suits, tuba etc...
You yourself will certainly think about your boat, the sails and the hotel
room.
But first you will get your car to the garage and have it reviewed and may
be geared with some new gadgets to carry lugages, bikes, boards etc....
What will you discuss with the mechanics? the car, not the hotel choicel,
the view on the cape, the quality of the sand, your surfing board, etc...
Here we are with mechanics, the review of the engine and potentially the
buying of a new car fitting our needs (defining Working Group F). Some
topics like the size of your boad may be of inciodental interest when a new
car (WG and even a new DNSO), but not so many ...
We have a very small amount of time. We are concerned by very important
topics for the ICANN. One of these topics is to get rid of the @large
concerns which have to be better and correctly housed in the @large
organization to come.
Here is what I propose you and the many @large people who came on this
list: it is to participate actively in this effort in starting the @large
list the ICANN has not created yet for us. I created it as
icann-atlarge@egroups.com. Just send a mail to
icann-atlarge-subscribe@egroups.com. And there let discuss all the topic we
want to rise and which do not belong to the DNSO.
One of the targets of the WG-Review is to remove the @large concerns from
the DNSO and to port them to the coming @large organization. If we want
both the DNSO and the @large to be efficient and working closely together
we have to accept that. So from the icann-atlarge@egroups.com list we will
be able to prepare adequate comments to this list.
Jefsey Morfin
PS. I will load tomorrow the independant sites if the 11 [IDNH] and 12
[STLD] subjects. And all the pages for the review of this Working Group.
May be will you want to assist in reviewing them. I will post the
information when released.
On 19:51 02/01/01, Ken Stubbs said:
>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
>>>
|