Re: [ga] .pro Community Refund

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
 
Your point is well taken. Perhaps I even stand corrected ;-} Certainly Richards' tireless work here is worthy of funding, and we should support it with more than verbage. {Poor Richards' Almanac" comes to mind) Some guy told his son, "you have got to stand for something or you will fall for anything"
Now, I do take issue with these concepts of pussy and slut and sex.PRO, no one needs be reminded of the oldest profession. But in seriousness it is a shame. Why couldn't we have one domain reserved for professionals of a high pedigree? Learned woman that have paid dues of education and training to attain notoriety and respect? Well I'll tell you why, because it is not nor has the notion ever been sustainable and compatible with the insurmountable capacity for human greed. If you have a domain, the theory is you landrush it. The only exception I know of is dot.VN and I lost all my wisdom teeth to keep it so. By goodness, Veterans Network and Virtual Network were there for the taking . But it was kept clean as Vietnam, yes we relaxed some standards, (praise here be to the late Peter of clear) god rest his soul. dotVN remains a ccTLD with integrity and no you may not have sex in Vietnam Dr.. But is .PRO sustainable without the greed? I think so and I think we know it. But in th!
ese days
 of the Quick buck and balls to the wall get rich schemes it is simply tooooo tempting to get that almighty buck from pussy.
Now, I still want to know who got paid off to relax these standards and a little bird from MDR told me Danny knows who it is. Oh yes one more thing, hold your hat because here comes Karl.
 
e
Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

No I think if you read closely what I stated, we do agree. Indeed,
such funds are many times misused or collected under false pretenses.
Hence why in part, my response to Danny said, " the uses to which
you Danny, wish for this fund to support is not representative of the
stakeholders/users." Which Danny listed as the following [from below]:
Support of the DNSO.
Support for additional arbitration mechanisms.
Consumer-focused domain name education programs.
Support for ICANN policies.
Bridging the Digital Divide.

So to belabor and/or elaborate further Eric, from the above,
Support for ICANN policies and Support of the DNSO,
are two areas which Danny listed that such a fund should
NOT support.




Hugh Dierker wrote:

> No I irrespectively disagree,
>
> Such funds are bounty hunters' booty.
> Why is the money put up? Why does someone seek it?
> It is a scurge.
>
> e
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
> Such a fund is a good idea, however the uses to which you Danny, wish
> for this fund to support is not representative of the
> stakeholders/users.
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Mike, I am affiliated with a group that may have an interest in
> > obtaining funds for a consumer-focused domain name education
> program.
> > Can I trouble you to look into the .pro Community Refund initiative
> > and advise regarding the status of this program, and when and how we
>
> > might apply for receipt of such funds.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Danny
> >
> > 6. Community Refund
> >
> > For each fiscal twelve-month period (the "Community Refund Period")
> > beginning in the term after Registry Operator has fully repaid its
> > investors and declared and issued dividend payments to its
> > shareholders, Registry Operator shall issue a "Community Refund," as
>
> > described below. Registry Operator shall be deemed to have declared
> > and issued a dividend payment to the extent retained earnings of the
>
> > Company exceed three times its total investment.
> >
> > The total "Community Refund" will be calculated as follows:
> >
> > During each Community Refund Period, Registry Operator will
> calculate
> > the percentage of all new .pro domain name registrations associated
> > with Registry Services that were sponsored by a shareholder of
> > Registry Operator, which also operates as an ICANN-Accredited
> > Registrar as defined in the Registry Agreement. Such percentage will
>
> > be multiplied by Registry Operator's net income derived from the
> > Registry Services during such Community Refund Period to arrive at
> the
> > Community Refund.
> >
> > Example: If the total number of new domain name registrations in a
> > community refund period were 300,000, and 50,000 had been registered
>
> > by the shareholders of Registry Operator, 16.667% (50,000/350,000)
> of
> > the net income (after interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization
> and
> > dividend) derived from Registry Services would be available to be
> paid
> > as a community refund.
> >
> > The calculation of the Community Refund will be approved by the
> > Registry Operator Board of Directors no later 120 calendar days
> after
> > the audit for such accounts has been completed for such Community
> > Refund Period. The refund will be distributed no later than 90
> > calendar days following approval by the Board of Directors, unless
> an
> > extension is needed to review proposals from groups requesting such
> > funds.
> >
> > The Registry Operator Board of Directors shall review the proposals
> > and shall determine the recipients and amounts of distributions from
>
> > the refund. The distributions shall be made for the promotion of the
>
> > management and deployment of the Internet in the public interest and
>
> > may include:
> >
> > Support of the DNSO.
> > Support for additional arbitration mechanisms.
> > Consumer-focused domain name education programs.
> > Support for ICANN policies.
> > Bridging the Digital Divide.
> >
> > Each year beginning after the completion of the initial Community
> > Refund Period, Registry Operator will report, according to Appendix
> U,
> > on the distributions made from the Community Refund.
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/pro/registry-ag
> > t-appg-23apr04.htm
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
>
> "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> Pierre Abelard
>
> "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.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Make Yahoo! your home page