User talk:Jdisini

Thanks so much for taking an interest in the article about you, and I also really appreciate you not deleting the information wholesale. If you have any questions don't hesitate to email me via andrew[at]icannwiki.com, Best - Andrew

.spa TLD disputes

Greetings, Joel. Thank you for the information you have contributed recently regarding disputes over the .spa TLD. It seems more appropriate to us that the information be housed primarily on the .spa page, as well as the pages of corporate parties (e.g., DotAsia) to the lawsuits, rather than repeated on the pages of each defendant. I have made edits to the .spa page to add the information you have provided. I have also removed the "Controversy" sections from the people profiles on the wiki.

I also ask that you continue to exercise restraint in your representation of the dispute and the issues involved. ICANNWiki's role is to provide accurate and relevant information to participants and stakeholders. It is not to represent or endorse a particular point of view, nor is it a forum to advertise for a particular side in disputes.

From Joel

andrew

I have sent mail to andrew@icannwiki.org but it bounces. I have no idea if this page is public or private, but given the urgency I will just post a reply to this message here. I hope that you get this in time. I have also emailed Ray King, fyi, if you want to see the attachments.

email sent Dec 4, 2020:

Ray/Andrew

I just received a message via Icannwiki that you have modified the page of Edmon Chung to remove all references to the lawsuits that have been filed against him and his various companies. We will be restoring these references, and I would like to ask you to let these changes remain, and I will explain why.

Edmon Chung is engaged in many activities that I would consider fraudulent and nefarious.

Jason Chapnik of Intercap (Toronto) paid $1.5M for 50% share of BOX. 2 years after payment was released, Edmon had yet to issue his shares in BOX. I attach an irate email from Jason Chapnik as proof. They are now engaged in a $2M lawsuit in Toronto.

When I learned of this in early 2019 after talking to Chapnik, I too found out - to my surprise - that my shares in Namesphere had not been issued by Edmon. (I had invested in NS in 2012)! Dotph too has filed suit in HK. (Andrew has modified the Icannwiki entry to say that we had uploaded a draft and may not have yet filed the case. The actual writ of summons is attached).

Also to my surprise, Namesphere to this day does not have a bank account, despite receiving $1.5M from the sale of .Studio and about $270k from the sale of .NOW. All cash has been pocketed by DotAsia (again, unbeknowst to me), and in 2019 Edmon suddenly announces about $1.5M in expenses, (including salaries for himself, his wife, and his sister) and now saying that NS owes DotAsia money, even though NS has not had a single domain actually go live!

But the real reason I write you with urgency is that today as we speak, Edmon is trying hard to sell the last remaining assets of Namesphere. He intends to hold a "board meeting" today to authorize this sale. The buyers of this TLD (I do not know who they are) need to know that IF THEY PROCEED WITH THE SALE, they will be embroiled in a lawsuit and their investment will not be able to see the light of day.

I am NOT going to be publishing most of this material on ICANNwiki. These are just the key transgressions. There is so much more - electoral fraud, bloated travel expenses, privacy rules preventing the members and directors from viewing the receipts of DotAsia. All these are actually documented, but we have refrained from exposing any of these.

But I do ask that you NOT bury these facts (i.e. the existence of lawsuits vs Edmon), as the buyers of assets Edmon is unloading need to be warned.

Regards Joel Disini

Letter being circulated today:

Have you or anyone you know by chance been involved in talks to buy

.网站

If so you should know that we are involved in a dispute with Edmon Chung and the holding company for this TLD, which is Namesphere. (With DotAsia as majority partner)

Last year, Edmon surreptitiously sold for $0 (or gave away) the TLD .SPA, also belonging to Namesphere. He did this without the consent of his partners in Namesphere (which would be us).

He arranged a clandestine meeting of DotAsia on Sept 18, 2019 to approve the giveaway.

https://www.dot.asia/dotasia-files/board/meeting-minutes/board/DotAsia-BoardMinutes-20190918_FINAL.pdf

Then had the ICANN contract sign SPA away on Sept 19, 2019 to a Malaysian company.

https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/spa-2019-09-19-en

We did not discover this until sometime in November, when he announced It on the DotAsia website. Then ensuing lawsuit is here:

http://domainincite.com/docs/SPA-Writ-of-Summons-(20201019).pdf

We are also embroiled in another lawsuit with Edmon and DotAsia as they have refused to release our shares in Namesphere (despite having paid for our shares way back in 2012).

Lastly, we are not the only company with this issue, there is also a $2M lawsuit in company naming DotAsia, Edmon Chung, and NS as defendants over BOX.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cMWDZyAqYCon9YWC8lrkXwN63cpofGTC/view

Should you buy this TLD until this litigation is settled, you may not be able to operate said TLD and be embroiled in some costly litigation (just like the "buyer" of SPA). I would appreciate you coordinating with us if such transaction is taking place.

Apologies if I have contacted you in error, but Edmon is arranging a Namesphere meeting In less than 24 hours, and as usual, we have not been invited to the table.

Regards

Joel Disini

CEO, Dotph

+1-818-288-1383

Thoughts on editing ICANNWiki

Joel,

For ICANNWiki content, please keep in mind that the site strives to present information from a Neutral Point of View. So the fact that there is a legal dispute is fine information to be shown on the site, but it must be presented fairly and without bias. It should not be the opinion of just one side or the other. If there is a result from the case, that is fine to document as well. Secondly, it doesn’t make sense for content to be repeated on the site. So copying the same exact information and pasting It to multiple page junks up the site and is unnecessary. Hence we will remove duplicate content and try to show it where it makes most sense. If there is contentious content, then it is best to cite outside credible references. I hope this makes sense. Ray (talk)

From Joel

Hi Ray

I was just wondering what part of my content you felt was not neutral? The only thing I can think of is that a writ of summons had been uploaded instead of the actual Statement of Claim for the one of the lawsuits against Edmon, but that doesn't mean that my statement was false or biased, or that a lawsuit had not been filed. (Edmon himself is keenly aware of this lawsuit as this occurred in early 2020 and Edmon has already filed a response to this lawsuit, admitting fault, and agreeing to issue shares in Namesphere that should have been issued way back in 2012).

Please note that I am an advocate of having the truth and the whole truth out there. If you take a look at my ICANNWiki entry, there is a reference to a complaint filed against DotPH that was dismissed way back in 2001 WITH PREJUDICE. I chose to keep this false accusation in ICANNWiki, rather than edit it out, even though 19 years have passed and this charge is now obsolete. I believe the truth will out, and I am sure as the guy behind ICANNWiki, you feel the same way.

What I don't understand is the plastic surgery done to Edmon Chung's page so that it contains no reference to the 3 lawsuits facing him. These lawsuits have been filed against both Edmon Chung and DotAsia. The lawsuits cover the same transgressions, but the charges against Edmon and the charges against DotAsia are separate. It is technically possible that the suit against DotAsia may be dismissed (although Unlikely), while the suit against Edmon may not. So I think it is only proper that the reference to the lawsuit should appear on both the DotAsia page and the Edmon Chung page.

Response

Joel,

Your point is valid. We responded initially because you had added the same content to multiple pages which would be a problem in general if we did that for every employee of a company that was in a lawsuit. That said, since edmon is separately named and you mention that the cases are not identical, we added it back to his page. Ray (talk)

Top-Level Domain