<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting
- To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting
- From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:22:07 +0100
Roberto,
I personally welcome any efforts directed to advocation of registrant's
interests. Maybe that lonely voice might have seemed as a desperate
screaming in a desert but it is symptomatic, as a result of none or slow
progress towards such interests and a growing pile of unsolved problems.
I am happy someone had a courage to point it out on official forum and
couldn't get ignored or overlooked like, let's say, the members of this
list..., regardless of his personal relation to Nicole or Claudia.
Dominik
________________________________
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:38 PM
To: 'Prophet Partners Inc.'; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; 'Gomes, Chuck'
Subject: RE: [ga] Matthew Hooker from Los Angeles ICANN meeting
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 A. Williams
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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&kword=male&view=eve
nt 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-GNSOImprov
ements-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-GNSONEWgTL
DsPartII-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-GNSONEWgTL
DsPart3-29OCT07.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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|