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

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

Ted and all,

  Ah, ok I guess I can see where your coming from as far as
whomever this Matthew Hooker is and his representation of
whichever registrants.  I have no idea whom Claudia Schieffer is
really, although I have heard the name.  Different circles I suppose...

  BTW, I don't consider myself, either Roberto or Avri as key
leaders regardless of their current ICANN positions.  Same old
musical chairs game as far as I am concerned.  Most of our members
have this same opinion.  Chuck is a leader and a fairly good one IMHO.
However we all should be mindful he is a NSOL/VRSN employee.

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:

>  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,TedProphet
> Partners
> Inc.http://www.ProphetPartners.comhttp://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
>