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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ted,
The problem is that we don't know what a person is going to say until he/she
starts speaking.
Not being a fan of preventive censorship, I thought fairer to let him go
until it was obvious to the audience that he was going off-topic.
Personally, I believe that under similar circumstances I would behave in the
same way, I am sorry for the wasted time for the audience, but the purpose
of open fora is to let people speak.
This said, going to your first line, I believe that it is not sufficient to
lay a claim to represent registrant interests (or whatever else) to be
recognized as a true representative of these interests. As a matter of fact,
I am under the impression that, had you not brought the matter to the
attention of the list, we all would have already long forgotten the guy and
his claim.
Cheers,
Roberto
 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Prophet Partners Inc.
Sent: Friday, 18 January 2008 02:09
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
Subject: Re: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting


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  <mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> A. Williams 
To: Prophet Partners Inc. <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
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
<http://www.dailyceleb.com/production/?eid=506&kword=male&view=event>
&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-GNSOImprovemen
ts-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-GNSONEWgTLDsPa
rtII-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-GNSONEWgTLDsPa
rt3-29OCT07.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