Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted and all,

  I am not at all sure why you posted this, however the idea of
a registrants bill of rights has been around for more than 4 years
now, and ICANN cannot issue such without the approval of
the DOC/NTIA, which is very unlikely.

  However that stated, it is and has been clear for some time now
that a Independant Registrants Constituency is and has been necessary
but rejected by the GNSO council and subsequently the ICANN
Board.  This is both unfortunate and detramental in solving many
DNS related issues and policies that remain undolved or not fully
recognized.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

"Prophet Partners Inc." wrote:

> 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
> Kidmanhttp://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,
> Californiahttp://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,
> Californiahttp://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,
> Californiahttp://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,TedProphet Partners
> Inc.http://www.ProphetPartners.comhttp://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com