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

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

Hi Jeff,

I posted this info to the list because I believe it is important for people to 
know who claims to be representing registrant interests. I especially think 
that it is important for key leaders like Roberto Gaetano, Avri Doria and Chuck 
Gomes to recognize this, so that everyone can spend their valuable time in a 
more productive manner. At the Los Angeles ICANN meeting, Matthew Hooker was 
given three opportunities to speak during the open public forums. 3 speeches X 
5 minutes X 1,000 people in the ballroom = about 15,000 wasted minutes 
listening to someone, who in my opinion, is clearly delusional. I certainly 
didn't travel cross-country, with the intention of wasting 15 minutes listening 
to some lunatic, who thinks he's going to be the next President, the world's 
first trillionaire or Nicole Kidman/Claudia Schiffer's boyfriend.

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeffrey A. Williams 
  To: Prophet Partners Inc. 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting


  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