RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

For the purposes of my argument, IANA :== CORE.

Yes, I know they were supposed to "not be connected". But, this is also an
old argument that neither of us will win. In my mind, IAHC/PAB/CORE was the
IANA proposal and by all superficial evidence, is the current ICANN, behind
the scenes.

In my mind, and the minds of many, CORE has no plausible deniability.
IAHC/PAB/CORE have all been acting in concert, as one org. If it quacks like
a duck and swims like a duck ...

It is significant that IAHC brought in this IP interest mess, to the DNS,
and we now have WIPO involvement, laid at the feet of a very few
IAHC/PAB/CORE members. Members that were involved in all three orgs.

It is the ex-chair of the IAHC and the PAB chair (D'Crock and Crispin) that
were the most staunch proponents for an exclusive-elite model. Both had
involvement in CORE, to my knowlege. In fact, IAHC was an exclusive club and
this is what prompted the hew and cry for openness, transparency, and
inclusiveness, a call that has continuously been ignored.

Crispin, has repeatedly, with pungent correctness, pointed out that the
ICANN is a privately-held corporation that is NOT democratic and is NOT a
governance organization. The flip-side of that argument is that ICANN is an
exclusive club that is only open to a select few, the periphery being not
much more than window-dressing, to keep the mob occupied. The behavior of
the past few years seems to give credence to that argument.

D'Crock has continually made reference that ICANN is only to be occupied
with the USG root zone and that others are irrelevent. Ken, I can't honestly
read that as anything other than an elitist statement. It is rife with
exclusivity.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: kstubbs@digitel.net [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:42 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> 
> 
> Roland...
> 
> i am confused as to your comments below re: CORE
> CORE never made any proposal of the nature you are referring to
> in your response ...
> 
> we supported the IANA proposal for NEWCO all along
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> To: "'babybows.com'" <webmaster@babybows.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> 
> 
> > > 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@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
> >
> 
--
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