Comments

1. Domain Administrator says

   February 11, 2015 at 7:26 pm

   Excellent Mr. Berkens. I wish, Rick puts this Fadi a permanent place on “Hall of Shame”

2. Acro says

   February 11, 2015 at 7:57 pm

   Fadi appears to be disconnected from the domain community, he does not even own his full name in .com; the domain was *offered* to him by the fella who registered it but there’s no interest by the CEO, apparently.

3. Domain Observer says

   February 11, 2015 at 9:45 pm

   The first round of attack against domain investors was the introduction of thousands of new gTLDs and, one year later, it turns out to be an unsuccessful attack. Now, second round of attack is needed for the haters. Domain investors, expect the second one.

4. Louise says

   February 11, 2015 at 10:04 pm

   Chehadi is happy with his pay:

   September 2012. Mr. Chehadé entered into an employment agreement with ICANN effective 14 September 2012 ending 30 June 2015. This agreement has been extended to 30 June 2017. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Chehadé is to be paid a base salary of US $630,000 per year, is eligible for additional at – risk compensation of up to
   US $270,000 per year, and is provided reasonable coverage under vacation, health and welfare plans including medical, dental, vision, life insurance and a 401(k) retirement plan that ICANN makes available to all its U.S. based employees.

   besides who knows what profits get realized in secret deals? Chehadi is not concerned over the community’s opinion of him, I don’t think.

5. h4ck3r says

   February 11, 2015 at 11:09 pm

   “We went from twenty-something top-level domains … to hundreds now… We think it will actually reduce cybersquatting eventually.”

   Where in that sentence does he call domainers, domain investors, those with massive portfolios, those holding domains to charge a lot for them the “C bomb”?
   Nowhere, that’s where. You can infer all you want but that doesn’t change anything.

   Let me give you an example of a similar statement:
   “We think that by printing money with additional security codes we think it will reduce counterfeiters eventually”
   Does this mean people with money are counterfeiters?

   I guess I should add whiner to the list of terms for domain investors.

   • Ed says

     February 13, 2015 at 1:08 pm

     Let me give you an example of a similar statement:
     “We think that by printing money with additional security codes we think it will reduce counterfeiters eventually”
     Does this mean people with money are counterfeiters?

     I guess I should add whiner to the list of terms for domain investors.

     Your analogy is flawed because the individuals (counterfeiters) who counterfeit money are by definition breaking the law.

     If you want to make a point you can try again by improving the wording of your analogy.

     • h4ck3r says

       February 13, 2015 at 7:47 pm

       Are you then claiming then that Cybersquatters are not, by definition and in the context used, not breaking the law?

       The point I was making is that he did not say anywhere refer to domain investors / hoggers / hoarders in that sentence. He merely said he would reduce Cybersquatting – the illegal activity you all so abhor. This is exactly what my analogy said (of course all analogies fail at some level so one shouldn’t spend too much time breaking them apart).

       If I had said that “We think that by printing money with additional security codes it will reduce the amount of counterfeiting by financial investors” you would have a point as I have associated the legal and the illegal. But did Fadi do that?
       In this instance, I believe he was talking about cybersquatting in the illegal sense versus a layman using the term squatter and his belief that it would be reduced.

       In this instance I believe the persecuted domainers have take the term cybersquatter and themselves conflated it with domain investor.

6. 8p6 says

   February 12, 2015 at 1:02 am

   Where did anyone use the C word I believe Mr. Berkens said hogger and that is the derogatory term that the president of ICANN used hogger.

   • h4ck3r says

     February 12, 2015 at 2:08 am

     That would be in the linked letter and in the prior reference post.
     In fact, it was marked as “emphasis added”.

     Apple has been accused of hoarding cash. Is hoarding the acceptable term? Are we really going to cry about the use of hog vs hoard?

     • Louise says

       February 12, 2015 at 11:32 am

       Don’t talk about Apple, in the same breath as domain investment! From Michigan Senator Carl Levin’s 2013 statement about Apple’s tax strategies:

       Apple argues that it is one of the biggest corporate taxpayers in America, that in 2012 alone, it paid $6 billion in taxes. What Apple doesn’t say is that, also in 2012 alone, it shifted $36 billion in worldwide sales income away from the United States and paid no U.S. tax on any of it. In fact, the data provided by Apple indicates that, through its cost-sharing agreement and “check the box,” in 2012 alone, Apple avoided the payment of $9 billion in U.S. taxes, which works out to avoiding $25 million a day, more than $1 million an hour, in taxes.

       Apple executives want the public to focus on the U.S. taxes the company has paid, but the real issue is the billions in taxes it has not paid, thanks to offshore tax strategies whose purpose is tax avoidance, pure and simple.

       Hog/Hoard – Apple takes the prize!

       Different from assembling a collection of domains for resale to end users, where the applicable fees are paid in full.

       • h4ck3r says

         February 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm

         Come on now, a lot of domain investors tax filings are worse than Apple (i.e. evasion vs avoidance).
         If you’re looking at avoidance,
         I’m sure Seven Mile Beach was not chosen purely for the view.