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

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

I am also sure that many interests already on the NC would disagree. If you
think our job here is to give a rubber stamp approval of the system as it
stands now, then why did you vote for an extension of time? We could all
just write about how wonderful they are doing and get that done quickly. I
wasn't aware this group had to have prior approval of the current NC Members
before discussing what is wrong with this picture. It's my understanding we
should be discussing how to improve it. The motion to throw out discussion
about the disbanding of ICANN has already been decided. We are talking of
how to improve the situation. How would you propose to do that without
discussing the problems? Or don't you think there are any? These issues have
been part of the discussion from the beginning. How has this been a
misrepresentation to you? And from this post you state that if it goes a
direction you don't agree with you will pack up and go away. Who sounds
disinfranchised now Ken?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
To: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [wg-review] Proposal for ICANN Board electors and funding.


>
> 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