Give your opinion and vote on the ICA

[equity78]

Michael Berkens from thedomains.com wrote a very good article about the ICA and Icann. The minimum membership fee to the ICA is $295. The organization also needs numbers, better to represent 5000 members then 500.

So please give your opinion on the ICA, Would you spend $295 or is that too high, and would you pay a $20 membership to help the organization. Imo the 1000 domainers that would pay $20 is a found $20,000.

So please give your the opinion.

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/03/2...s-they-are-working-on-to-protect-your-domains

 

[Ms Domainer]

Michael Berkens from thedomains.com wrote a very good article about the ICA and Icann. The minimum membership fee to the ICA is $295. The organization also needs numbers, better to represent 5000 members then 500.

So please give your opinion on the ICA, Would you spend $295 or is that too high, and would you pay a $20 membership to help the organization. Imo the 1000 domainers that would pay $20 is a found $20,000.

So please give your the opinion.

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/03/2...s-they-are-working-on-to-protect-your-domains

*

I don't think the ICA represents the concerns felt by average domainers.

Otherwise, they would drop that membership fee to $25.00 - $40.00 per year with full voting rights. Why on earth would anyone join an organization without any voting rights or voice? That's insane!

I belong to the very huge Modern Language Association (MLA), which has a membership fee schedule based on teaching income. Moreover, they have joint memberships for couples. Grad students get a special low rate ($20.00, I think). Why? Because they know that if you nab members early, they tend to renew because they feel like they have a voice. My husband has been a member since the early 1970's, and I joined about 15 years ago. Our joint dues are approximately $150.00 per year, but we gladly pay it because our organization (most of the time) supports us and works hard to better our profession.

This is the way to gain support and members, not becoming an exclusive country club for rich domainers. At this point, you need numbers. The money will come IF you can convince members that you are acting in their best interests, not just the interests of the Frank Schillings, Rick Latonas, and Rick Schwartzes, who are very fine people, but probably need less help and support than the domainer just starting out.

Most of the domainers I know would pony up a fair membership fee; I know I would.


*

 

[equity78]

I agree Ms.Domainer 100 %

 

[equity78]

New post at the TheDomains.com details the URS and why the ICA needed more, so give your comments as to why you would not join the ICA or if you would like a lower membership fee.

Hate UDRP’s: Say Hello To Something Much Worse, The Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): Get Ready To Lose Your Domains | The Domains

 

[TheDomains]

*

I don't think the ICA represents the concerns felt by average domainers.

Otherwise, they would drop that membership fee to $25.00 - $40.00 per year with full voting rights. Why on earth would anyone join an organization without any voting rights or voice? That's insane!

I belong to the very huge Modern Language Association (MLA), which has a membership fee schedule based on teaching income. Moreover, they have joint memberships for couples. Grad students get a special low rate ($20.00, I think). Why? Because they know that if you nab members early, they tend to renew because they feel like they have a voice. My husband has been a member since the early 1970's, and I joined about 15 years ago. Our joint dues are approximately $150.00 per year, but we gladly pay it because our organization (most of the time) supports us and works hard to better our profession.

This is the way to gain support and members, not becoming an exclusive country club for rich domainers. At this point, you need numbers. The money will come IF you can convince members that you are acting in their best interests, not just the interests of the Frank Schillings, Rick Latonas, and Rick Schwartzes, who are very fine people, but probably need less help and support than the domainer just starting out.

Most of the domainers I know would pony up a fair membership fee; I know I would.


*

Ms.

The problem is there are very few "domainers" in the world.

You are comparing a profession like teaching that has hundreds of thousands of people around the country, if not millions if you consider student teachers and part timers to one that has maybe 500-1000 people doing it for a living.

You can't run an organization on $20K a year.

1,000 members at $20, wouldn't even pay for Phil's travel to the ICANN shows and committee work.

Let's get real guys

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

The ICA has just issued their position on the URS and other proposals made by the trademark holders.

Look at this guys travel schedule just over the next 3 months, and then tell me again you want to contribute $20

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

The ICA has just issued their position on the URS and other proposals made by the trademark holders.

Look at this guys travel schedule just over the next 3 months, and then tell me again you want to contribute $20

The ICA Issues Their Statement On The Uniform Rapid Suspension and Other IRT Proposals | The Domains

 

[equity78]

Michael glad you posted here, as I said on the blog just trying to help and it seems that on the biggest domainer forum on the net, most people are not willing to put up $295 to join. I know you said ICA needs a couple hundred thousand, with all that you, Schilling,Ham,Day,Dicker,Sedo,Fabulous,Thought Convergence and Directi alone have at risk I would think you all could handle the couple hundred thousand. The $20 members solve the numbers aspect, I think there are more than 500 to 1000 domainers worldwide, if there are not then the ICA is screwed because Icann and any Gov not taking a group with 1000 members worldwide serious.

The person who posted on your blog about where was ICA on warehousing was a good question IMO.

ICA needs to also answer why someone would join when Rick Schwartz a founder left, many domainers follow his lead,why doesn't Godaddy belong,Tucows other major players in the domain industry ? Again IMO

 

[-REECE-]

I honestly don't think your average domainer would pay $1 to join and I'm not saying that out of disrespect for the ICA -- I'm saying that based on what I've observed about domainers and altruism.

I'd pay the $295 if it let me use the logo -- I don't see what help my $295 would be in the scope of things however if I could use the logo, at least I could show it off to several thousand domainers and possibly get more memberships for the ICA, in effect making my own contribution go further.

 

[DNProperty.com]

Have multiple membership levels starting at $25 per year to $295 with varying voice and voting rights or access.

I will support if the fees are lower and like the idea of having a BBB type of stamp of approval.

 

[YAYnames.com]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I've been posting on Michael Berkens' blog regarding the ICA, and their unwillingness to speak up regarding Registrar domain warehousing.

I think it stinks, and calls into question the sincerity of the statment on their "About Us" page that they are "representing domain name investors... ". There is just no good excuse for ICA not taking up this issue with a passion and helping to put an end to it. Ironically, it was Berkens who enlightened many of us (myself included) to this scummy practice. If you don't know what I'm talking about just Google "warehousing site:thedomains.com"

However, today I'm joining ICA at the Associate level $295, because it's all about politics, and politics is all about money. Sad as that may be, it's still the reality. And my $295, though it is painful for me, is just a tiny drop in the ocean that will probably be needed to lobby against the trademark lobby.

There are a bunch of other things besides the warehousing issue that I don't like about ICA:

• I don't get a vote for my $295.
• I believe the big-time domainers have too much sway over the agenda, and their interests don't necessarily coincide with small-timers like me.
• I don't believe ICA communicates what they're doing for squat. They ought to be posting on this and other domain forums at least weekly.

But, in my own enlightened self interest, and knowing that money talks and BS walks in politics, I'm going to painfully cough up that $295 today.

You probably should, too. It really is in your own interest. Maybe we can force them to address the warehousing issue in the future.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Ms Domainer]

I've been posting on Michael Berkens' blog regarding the ICA, and their unwillingness to speak up regarding Registrar domain warehousing.

I think it stinks, and calls into question the sincerity of the statment on their "About Us" page that they are "representing domain name investors... ". There is just no good excuse for ICA not taking up this issue with a passion and helping to put an end to it. Ironically, it was Berkens who enlightened many of us (myself included) to this scummy practice. If you don't know what I'm talking about just Google "warehousing site:thedomains.com"

However, today I'm joining ICA at the Associate level $295, because it's all about politics, and politics is all about money. Sad as that may be, it's still the reality. And my $295, though it is painful for me, is just a tiny drop in the ocean that will probably be needed to lobby against the trademark lobby.

There are a bunch of other things besides the warehousing issue that I don't like about ICA:

• I don't get a vote for my $295.
• I believe the big-time domainers have too much sway over the agenda, and their interests don't necessarily coincide with small-timers like me.
• I don't believe ICA communicates what they're doing for squat. They ought to be posting on this and other domain forums at least weekly.

But, in my own enlightened self interest, and knowing that money talks and BS walks in politics, I'm going to painfully cough up that $295 today.

You probably should, too. It really is in your own interest. Maybe we can force them to address the warehousing issue in the future.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

*

You will have no voice, you don't like their stand on domain warehousing, and they don't really represent the small domainer, and yet you're willing to fork over $295?

Oh, well.

With no voice, you'll not be forcing ICA to do anything for you.

IMHO, I would want my organization to work for me and my interests (along with the greater good for the profession as well); I wouldn't have to agree 100%, but I would want my voice to be heard and counted. Otherwise, forget it.


*

 

[YAYnames.com]

Ms Domainer, Believe me, I hear you. But it comes down to this -- trademark groups (aka reverse hijackers in the matters that concern us) have more money that Bill Gates. And in politics, the money prevails in the vast majority of cases.

So there are three choices the way I see it -- at least in the short term.

• First, form a group that completely represents our interests.
  
• Second, abstain on principle.
  
• Or, third, support the only group defending the rights of domainers on any front whatsoever (that would be ICA).

I don't like the choices, as I have repeatedly posted. But the first two amount to throwing in the towel completely. If there was a group that better represented exactly what I wanted, I would join it. Even if such a group didn't exist, but could be formed quickly, I would join it. But the ugly reality is that it would take months for that to happen, and any time you form a group the members invariably fight about what the priorities should be.

If you have ever been threatened with or faced a UDRP you know what you are up against. I only buy completely generic names, and I have received threats of legal action.

This URS is much, much worse than UDRP, and UDRP is kind of a bad joke (on us). The only group that's actually lobbying policy makers in our interests at all is ICA.

So pick which option you want, but the first one is unrealistic, and the second one is cowardly, IMHO.

*

You will have no voice, you don't like their stand on domain warehousing, and they don't really represent the small domainer, and yet you're willing to fork over $295?

Oh, well.

With no voice, you'll not be forcing ICA to do anything for you.

IMHO, I would want my organization to work for me and my interests (along with the greater good for the profession as well); I wouldn't have to agree 100%, but I would want my voice to be heard and counted. Otherwise, forget it.


*

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

One more quick point.

In any organization numbers do matter. I mean bodies, not cash.

If enough domainers were to join ICA at Associate level and squawk about the things we don't like (warehousing, warehousing, warehousing), they would either be forced to change their focus, or be threatened with a break-away group that would do same.