<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] New Constituency
Ted and all,
Ok, well maybe IDRC.ORG = Independent Registrants Constituency
is a better choice. And I agree, unless or until we can come up with
a domain name, getting the legal work for 501(C)3 status can not be
completed, but it can be at least started, ergo prepared but not
actually filed.
I have ask Dr. Dierker, or challenged him to at least
start this legal work with no result. Maybe he is waiting for someone
on this forum to offer him payment or doing so? Dr. Dierker?? One
can easily download all of the legal forms for a very minimal cost, which
I calculated at less than $500.00. So the only remaining cost would be
determinant on which state in which we wanted to actually file in. I
would suggest either Delaware or Calif. As Calif. is Dr. Dierker's home
state, he may find it a bit more advantageous if he will do the minimal
legal work pro bono, which given his non answer, I am assuming he
will not do so, which gives me pause...
However now it seems that Dr. Dierker is more interested in
more debate and discussion revolving around a more inclusive
At Large or getting the GA rerecognized. From where I sit
anyway this approach, although laudable in the latter respect,
is very unlikely to succeed given the history of the GA, the
IDNO, and the fact that ICANN doesn't want a GA of any
sort that is too inclusive as to membership, nor for that matter
a competing At Large with ICANN creation and fully owned,
ALAC. Ergo this strategy I believe to be flawed accordingly.
However all this yet again restated for the I don't know how
many times now, I do believe there is a chance that a registrants
constituency which is self funded, and a GA which is also
self funded, have a chance of being accepted, where the
registrants constituency, i.e. "Independent Registrants Constituency"
is a new constituency, and the GA is a true "General Assembly" for
non represented users or registrants. Hence here again why I have
yet again made these suggestions and the challenge to Dr. Dierker
as well as my remarks in respect to same above.
So "we" can step up to the plate and actually do something
positive, or we can continue the mental and verbal masturbation
on this forum only talking about all sorts of nonsense with no action.
Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> All 3-letter domains in .com, .net, .org, .info and .biz are long gone.
> IUC.org has been registered since Jan 27,1999 and IRC.org has been
> registered since Sept 16, 1993. We either need to consider a 4-letter
> acronym for an available domain name or pony up the cash to buy the domain
> name we want from an existing registrant. IMO, there's no sense in pursuing
> incorporation or 501(C)3 status until we have a domain name.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] New Constituency
>
> > Dr. Dierker and all,
> >
> > Interesting response with little beef. Where's the Beef, Dr. Dierker?
> >
> > I can only surmise that you decline my suggested starting point.
> > However we must start somewhere, eh? Members will come
> > if they have a place to come to, which was what I suggested
> > below. I am sure others can do the outreach you indirectly
> > suggest. I gather however from your response that actually
> > starting and meeting the challenge which I pose, you are not
> > in agreement with or cannot produce the legal work necessary.
> > How unfortunate, another opportunity lost accordingly.
> >
> > How many more YEARS do you Dr. Dierker suggest we
> > discuss "options" before actually taking action? 2? 5? 20?
> >
> > Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >
> >> Very interesting comments and concepts. We should keep many options
> >> open. I am not convinced this is the most prudent way forward. Perhaps
> >> you could lay out what you believe to be the best route forward,
> >> including in some detail the steps to be taken down the road and the
> >> approach you would use to gain membership.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your continued contributions and high energy.
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Dr. Dierker and all,
> >>
> >> IUC.ORG seems like a good domain name for an Individual user
> >> constituency, and my original IRC.ORG which as I recall Dr.Dierker
> >> was in enthusiastic support of on this forum some 4 months ago, is
> >> a good domain name for Individual Registrant Constituency. I will
> >> be happy to register these Domain names if they are not already
> >> taken IF our fearless leader, Dr. Eric Dierker will do the necessary
> >> legal work for incorporating them in Delaware or California and
> >> 501 C3's.
> >>
> >> What say you Dr. Dierker, and all? Or shall we punt and
> >> keep on pitching bitches?
> >>
> >> Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >>
> >> > I believe that the GA would be well founded in commenting to the
> >> > effect that new broad based constituencies be formed.
> >> > It would appear that subsection 3.4 addresses this issue in relevant
> >>
> >> > part thusly;
> >> > Preliminary recommendations
> >> > Emerging recommendations regarding the constituency structure
> >> > include;
> >> > creating 3 or 4 broad based Stakeholder Groups..... ad nauseum.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://www.icann.org/announcements/draft-wg-bgc-gnso-improvements-18jun07.pdf
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is room for more than one and membership parameters would be
> >> > at issue.
> >> > When we began our current organization of the GA it seemed apparent
> >> > to me that the GA would help any movement to create an IDNO
> >> > constituency. Personally I would rather see a broader based
> >> Individual
> >> > User constituency. In any event we should be ready to help in this
> >> > endeavor. As I expressed earlier we should have a collective
> >> position
> >> > and stance.
> >> >
> >> > Eric
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeffrey A. Williams
> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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
> >> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> >> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|