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

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

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