Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and funding.

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

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