Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kendall and all remaining assembly members,

  Kendall, there is no need to apologize for anything.  Especially in thwarting

SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP as well as calling also for Ken Stubbs
resignation.  We [INEGRoup] support your reasons (Stated below)
for doing so as well and quite a history of Ken Stubbs activities over
the past two years.

Kendall Dawson wrote:

> At 11:35 AM 11/11/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >But pointless resolutions demanding that
> >Directors resign etc have undone all that.
>
> Kent,
>
> If you are referring to my forwarded message from Jeff Williams -- I
> apologize to Mr. Stubbs and the rest of the list. It was not my intention
> to engage in name-calling or personal attacks on Ken Stubbs. But, the
> reasons behind my support of Mr. Stubbs' resignation are NOT pointless and
> are completely credible.  It bothers me that according to ICANN's by-laws
> [article V-7] conflicts of interest are prohibited. But, the supporting
> organizations (and specifically the NC Chair) do not have to adhere to any
> sort of "conflict-of-interest policy"?
>
> Here are my reasons for supporting Ken Stubbs' resignation as the Chair of
> the Names Council:
> ----------------------------
>
> 1) A person by the name of Kenyon T. Stubbs is a 5% (or more) shareholder
> of iDomains, Inc which submitted an application to operate new TLDs (.biz /
> .ebiz / .ecom ).  Not surprisingly , the evaluation team concluded that
> this application "merited further review".  A "Notice of Material Change of
> Circumstances Regarding Ownership"
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/biz3/notice.html) was posted by ICANN just
> before midnight on 7 November, barely two days before ICANN posted the
> results of its review of the proposals,  Report on TLD Applications. [The
> same person??]
>
> 2) Ken Stubbs, is a member of the Board of Afilias who has submitted an
> application to operate new TLDs ( .info / .site / .web).
>
> 3) Ken Stubbs is the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Internet
> Council of Registrars (CORE) who's members (if selected by ICANN) will
> profit handsomely from sale of new top domain names.
>
> 3) Ken Stubbs is on the "Whois Committee for the DNSO" ??  [ This was
> revealed at the 19 October teleconference of ICANN's Names Council. Mr.
> Touton described it as - "just a group of people that...of various
> interest...who the ICANN staff asked to get together and try to formulate
> some proposals or ideas that might then be passed as appropriate to either
> the Names Council or the ICANN staff, depending on whether it's a policy
> matter or an implementation matter." This "informal" group was unknown even
> to the DNSO's secretariat
> [http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/icann3.html#8]. The only other known
> reference to this group is a message from Michael Palage to the DNSO's
> registrars' mailing list.  It is odd that we have never heard of it or its
> activities and that this "committee" has a scope so broad that its
> recommendations will be sorted on an ad hoc basis into "policy" or
> "technical" procedures and channels.]
>
> 4) And, finally, as a member of Working Group C, I was not satisfied with
> the explanation given by the Names Council for making a year's worth of
> their work irrelevant. I know that Mr. Stubbs is not the only member of the
> NC - nor did he vote on this alone.  But, being the Chair of the NC -- it
> should be his responsibility to provide an honest answer (from the other NC
> members) as to why the Names Council completely ignored a hard-won
> recommendation for 6 -10 new gTLDs that took Working Group C over a year to
> reach.
>
> And, as far as the other board members go? Here are some more examples of
> conflict of interest:
> ----------------------------
>
> Four boardmembers (Abril i Abril, Blokzijl, Crew, Davidson) who recused
> themselves from involvement in decisions on new TLDs. Well, maybe not...
> They did so, curiously, en masse, on 1 November -- just one day before the
> application period ended, that is to say, up to three weeks after the
> relevant proposals were submitted (Abril i Abril, Afilias
> ".info/.site/.web" [12 Oct] and CORE ".nom" [19 Oct]; Blokzijl, Telnic
> ".tel" [11 Oct]; Crew, JVTeam ".biz" [15 Oct] and JVTeam ".per" [11 Oct];
> Davidson, Group One ".one" [11 oct]). ICANN assures that they recused
> themselves "prior to their consideration of any application"; in other
> words, they spent months contributing to proposals while crafting ICANN's
> new TLD process. (http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/)
>
> My point is that, according to their by-laws, ICANN has to adhere to a
> conflict-of-interest policy, and so should the rest of the supporting
> organizations and the NC members. Anything else just makes the whole
> process seem suspicious.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kendall
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html