[ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anyone remember Matthew Hooker? He was at the Los Angeles ICANN meeting 
speaking out on behalf of Internet Domain Owners Association.

Matthew Hooker Performs his song "I Am Not A Stalker" outside KLSX Studios, Los 
Angeles, 05-01-01. Hooker was accused of stalking Nicole Kidman.
http://www.dailyceleb.com/production/?eid=506&kword=male&view=event

The Story of Matt Hooker and Nicole Kidman
http://www.dtheatre.com/read.php?sid=1756
  Matt Hooker, also explained he's running for president in 2004 and was 
striving to be the world's first trillionaire.

Transcript from Workshop: GNSO Improvements. Los Angeles, California
http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/LA-GNSOImprovements-29OCT07.txt

  >>MATT HOOKER:   Good morning.  I'm Matt Hooker with IDOA.info.  That 
  stands for the Internet Domain Owners Association.  And we find that 
  with regards to the working report, we'd like to add something to it, 
  because most individual domain name owners, they're not represented at 
  all.  And they really don't want to be involved in the process of 
  ICANN.  90% of the people -- 90% of the revenue, it has been said, that 
  comes to ICANN is through the GNSO.  90% of the policy is being made in 
  the GNSO.

   The individual domain name owners are actually the basis of the entire 
  Internet.  They buy domain names and then people make a lot of money on 
  the services for those domain names.

   What we'd like to add to this report -- and most people who own 
  domains all over the world, they don't want to get involved.

   What we want is a simple bill of rights that clearly states what 
  rights a domain name owner has, that is, someone who registers a domain 
  name.  And you're doing better about our ability to transfer these 
  domain names to whichever registrar we choose.  But you've made a big 
  mistake in allowing price increases, because all the individual domain 
  owners that I know, we all think that whatever price we buy a domain 
  at, we're buying the right in perpetuity to renew that domain at that 
  same price every year for as long as we want to keep that domain.

   So I think you're in breach of consumer protection laws.  And what we 
  want is as clear --

   >>ROBERTO GAETANO:   Excuse me.

   I -- those are -- it's really an interesting issue, and there will be 
  part during this week to address this issue.  But this is not in the 
  scope of the GNSO review process.  So I would -- you know, I would 
  welcome your comments, but if you could keep them on the contents of 
  the report, just in the interest of time.  And there will be, later on 
  in the week, in other assemblies, the possibility of raising these kind 
  of concerns.

   >>MATT HOOKER:   Of course.  So, then, I'll be very succinct here.  
  Individual domain name owners want to participate in this, but not 
  actively.  We want a set of -- a bill of rights that you cannot 
  violate, no matter what you decide to do.  That's how we want to 
  participate, by default.

   So we want a clearly defined set of rights that no matter what you do, 
  that you can't violate those.  And we don't have those yet.  We don't 
  have them clearly defined.  And we think you've already violated some 
  of them.  So let's get that, please, a bill of rights for everyone who 
  registers a domain name, because we think we own them.  And, obviously, 
  some of you don't agree.  So let's get that cleared up, please.

  Thank you.

Transcript from GNSO new gTLDs. Session 2. Los Angeles, California
http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/LA-GNSONEWgTLDsPartII-29OCT07.txt

  >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  I'm Matt Hooker.  I'm up here at the mic with a 
  different question and represent a different entity.  This time I 
  represent lowestpricedomain.com.  We are reseller of registrar 
  services, and the problem is we're getting hit with massive amounts of 
  chargebacks due to credit card fraud.

   And guy can steal credit card data somewhere in Vietnam or wherever.  
  I mean no slight to Vietnam, but that has been a particular problem to 
  us.  Register, sign up as a customer or reseller under our program, 
  register a number of domain names.  We don't find out that the card is 
  an unauthorized usage and that was stolen for 30 or 60 days, but, yet, 
  the agreement that ICANN has made with the registries doesn't allow 
  them to revoke the registration and give us our money back.

   So the registry doesn't -- it would be very simple for the registry to 
  revoke the registration, give us our money back, you know, due to 
  credit card fraud.  But the registry won't do that.

   So the registrars and the resellers for the registrars are left 
  holding worthless domain names.  They're almost always worthless and a 
  chargeback.  So that's something -- I would like to know, has that been 
  addressed and do you think you might be able to do anything about that?

   >>CHRIS DISSPAIN:  This is a registrar issue.  It is not an issue for 
  new gTLDs as far as I am aware.

   >>AVRI DORIA:  It's not --

   >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  Item J?

   >>AVRI DORIA:  It is not specific to new gTLDs.  If this issue exists 
  -- and I'm not assuming it does -- it exists now and it would be a 
  general issue, you know, across the board that we might need to deal 
  with or might be dealt with, but it certainly isn't a specific issue to 
  new gTLDs that is somehow different from all that we dealt with.

   >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  I think it falls under Item J.  It certainly looks 
  like it does, but it would also apply to current agreements.  And I 
  would ask you to consider this because it doesn't seem fair, and it 
  could be changed to make it a better way, a more fairer way.  Thank 
  you.

Transcript from GNSO new gTLDs. Session 3. Los Angeles, California
http://losangeles2007.icann.org/files/losangeles/LA-GNSONEWgTLDsPart3-29OCT07.txt

  >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  Yes, my name is Matt Hooker I am speaking for 
  myself and for free men and women everywhere, and we are completely 
  against recommendation 20 which we see as censorship.

   Since the printed word was developed, there has never been a greater 
  instrument for free expression in the Internet.  It is the best thing 
  humanity has ever had for freedom of speech.  We should not allow any 
  kind of censorship on it at all.

   To dictate what is and is not moral is censorship and to apply 
  cultural standards across the Internet brings us down to the lowest 
  common denominator --

   >>CHUCK GOMES:  Can I interrupt for a second?  Are you talking about 
  Recommendation 6 or Recommendation 20?

   >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  I believe they're combined, aren't they?

   >>CHUCK GOMES:  No.

   >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  One is deciding what's moral, and the other is 
  deciding if a community should be allowed to reject an application.

   >>CHUCK GOMES:  I just want to know which slide I should have up.  I 
  believe you are talking about 6 right now, right?

   >>MATTHEW HOOKER:  I believe I am talking about 6 and 20.  Six 
  certainly but I think 20 is also part of it.  I believe they're both 
  censorship and both amount to deciding what is moral or not which in 
  itself is censorship.  I am against both of them completely.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com