[ga] Re: I am mad about being discriminated against.
Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
I can't help you enough alone. Maybe Chris Ambler can! Chris,
please help Eric's potential client out here if you would please..
Woops, I forgot Chris couldn't help himself and rejected others
able assistance with his once-upon-a-time, .WEB... Ahhhh well,
maybe asking Chris is less than a really good idea? Or is it?
No, the answer left now for similar situations as you mention
is to garner enough of a group of stakeholders/users, lobby
congress unfortunately, but lobby them hard to help them to
provide for a set of regulations that ICANN and it's registries
or registrars must adhere to of pay very stiff automatic fines,
without right to appeal... It is a sad thing we are really faced
with escalating foolishness as it yet again seems ICANN is
engaged in.. I wonder whom will be the first to register
ICANNlaw.pro, if .pro is "Approved"...
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> Let me see if I got this right,
>
> So this client walks in your door and with a million bucks wants to
> litigate.
>
> Ok, so what is the problem. Well the client is a gay, transvestite,
> married in SF Ca, attorney, Chiropractor hooker out of Cuba, that
> speaks Navajo and Piute, Mormon, eats only "Rocky Mountain Oysters"
> and lost an arm fighting an obscene war someplace for Osama B. La di
> Da. Oops, and quite obviously the client is a color and old and has an
> erroneous HIV positive test from the English government. Sorry I
> forgot the client has a picture of an organ tattooed on forehead, that
> pulsates with expression, - but oh goodness a religious group put it
> there (not the Mormons).
>
> Well the client says it has been discriminated against by this
> psuedo-governmental - contracting body, that is run by Afilias in
> fact. (oh dear, during the interview you find out that the citizenship
> is Australian and the client is applying for a USA immigrant Visa,
> based upon the fact that this company can only hire him with his
> particular status as an Ombudsman in California)<do not worry we have
> already established that an "ombudsman in California" is a profession
> worthy of dotPRO>
>
> Well I am an attorney only licensed in Belize (dotBZ) and low and
> behold it turns out the spouse is a porno queen from an asian nation
> that is Muslim, with a pilots license but cannot land or take off a
> Jet. Who just happened to dodge military service while a citizen of
> Bosnia. Sure, the spouse is now a boxcutter salesperson in France.
> Danged If the cousin is not Vinton Cerf.
>
> Well I tell you what, you take this money because no matter what;
> somebody somewhere discriminated against this client I damn well
> asure you.
>
> But I cannot sleep because I worry that if I take the case I may lose
> my dotPro moonrise spot.
>
> Can anyone help me?
>
> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
> Good point. Yet in the traditional and still somewhat Victorian
> valued
> professional world, limited as that may be, the profession you refer
> to
> is and was not traditionally excepted as a "profession"... Yet in some
>
> countries prostitutes are registered professionals... So given the
> Circle ID article you mention, which I read recently myself and
> commented upon there, what if the lawyer/prostitute registering a .
> pro Domain was indeed also a prostitute as well as a side line?
> Would her domain name later be taken away once she was found
> out to be a prostitute in regards to the recent indecentcy reg's being
>
> considered?? And what would happen to this poor girls $2000.00
> she payed for the "Sunrise period" for registration of that domain
> name??
> Is that a regulatory Kink, pardon the pun?? >;)
>
> Hugh Dierker wrote:
>
> > I tell you mano,
> > this is even funnier and watch our Latin American and Asian Lawyers
> > say "what the Heck" I got to have a stinking norte americano badge,
> > to get a stinking dot.pro?
> > What were those to oldest professions?
> >
> > ======================================
> > ================================
> > [2] The Launch of .pro Domain for Professionals
> > ===============================================
> > =======================
> > INSIDE: Top-Level Domains
> > By Philippe Rodhain
> > Apr 15, 2004
> >
> > >From 5 April to 14 May 2004 trade mark owners can apply in the .pro
>
> > domain
> > for defensive registrations corresponding to their marks. The .pro
> > domain
> > is only available to doctors, lawyers and CPAs during this period,
> > known as
> > a "sunrise period". ...During the period when the creation of ten
> new
> > generic domains is being discussed, it seems timely to wonder
> whether
> > the
> > multiplicity of generic extensions is not killing the specificity
> > inherent
> > of each of them. In addition, having a "sunrise period" for this new
>
> > domain
> > might be perceived by trade mark owners as an invitation to spend
> > money
> > rather than as a measure aimed at protecting their intellectual
> > property
> > rights. >>>
> >
> > Read More + Add Your Comment:
> > http://www.circleid.com/article/568_0_1_0_C/
> >
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
> >
> > Beware ICANN Registries/registrars, you may be next inl ine
> > for some more Spam enforcement responsibility..
> >
> > See: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/adultlabel.htm
> > and http://www.tc.gov/os/2004/04/040413adultemailfinalrule.pdf
> >
> > It has been my experience that most of the sexually explicit
> > spam I received were .BIZ domain names....
> >
> > 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!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
> 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!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
>
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