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

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

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