RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:25 AM

> On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed 
> (www.tlda.org).

> While I loudly applaud the efforts of the alternate root 
> community to seek
> out efforts to eliminate collisions in their own namespace, I 
> find myself
> deeply troubled by the fact that none of these members that routinely
> participate on the GA list have commented on this development 
> in the midst
> of this GA election cycle.

You must be unaware of the history between the ORSC and the ICANN. After the
ICANN was endorsed, by the USG/DOC, there came a furious round of proposals
and counter-proposals, for the DNSO, by ORSC, BWG, and CORE. After Berlin,
'99', it quickly became apparent that the process was stacked, and the ORSC
refused to lend the ICANN its legitimacy. Some of us disagreed and continued
our involvement, knowing that everything was pre-arranged but hoping to make
some sort of difference. But, most of the ORSC decided to play
independently.

> What has happened to the concept of openness and transparency 
> by which we
> are expected to abide?    The Bylaws of our Corporation point 
> to the need
> for full disclosure of "conflicts of interest" by members of 
> our Board; can
> we expect anything less from candidates to the highest office 
> of the GA?

The ORSC and the TLDA are not the ICANN. It is composed of many that were
systematically disenfranchised by activities of the ICANN and the DNSO.
Along with openness and transparency was also to have been inclusiveness.
ICANN/DNSO have been nothing short of exclusive wrt the ORSC and other root
zone publishers. The most vocal proponents of this exclusivity were D'Crock
and Crispin. Much of their writtings are of "elitist" bent.

> But I cannot approve of his decision to both accept a 
> position as a Director
> of the TLDA, and to simultaneously run for the office of Chair of this
> General Assembly.

Isn't this position promoting the exclusivity of the ICANN/DNSO much
further? The TLDA only is possible because the ICANN forced it into being.
Most would readily be part of ICANN were they given an equal voice and a
place to be heard.

> I look forward to working with Patrick, and with the many of you that
> respect the fact that the worldwide Internet community includes the
> alternate root system - but I believe that in this instance, 
> Patrick made an
> error in judgement... one cannot effectively serve two such disparate
> masters.

They are only disparate because the ICANN has forced the disparity. ORSC was
once a very vocal supporter of the [IFWP] process and was the first to call
for openness and transparancy. The third leg of that stool is inclusiveness.
You are making an argument for exclusiveness and fostering the continuance
of the fragmentation and polarization that is caused directly by the ICANN
itself.

The ICANN was supposed to be an inclusive alliance of all internet
stakeholders. Instead, it has become a tightly knit club of an elite few.
--
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