Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> [THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
> THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA, auDA, ICANN OR ANY OTHER BODY]
>
> On Friday, March 30, 2001 11:24 PM (AEST)
> Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com> wrote:
>
> > On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed (www.tlda.org).
> >
> > Preliminary participants in this association include six members of the
> > Voting Registry of the GA:
> >
> > Patrick Corliss - Director
> > Leah Gallegos - Director
> > Miles Eugene Marsh - Chairman of the Board
> > John Palmer - Secretary
> > Bruce James - Initial Advisory Committee member
> > Prof. A. Michael Froomkin - Initial Advisory Committee member
> >
> > A member of the Names Council, Milton Mueller, is similarly listed as an
> > Initial Advisory Committee member, and assuredly other GA members will soon
> > declare themselves as participants in the TLDA efforts.
> >
> > The mission statement of this association represents that it is a:
> >  "trade association of Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) holders. This
> > organization represents the interests of TLD Holders and will seek to foster
> > cooperation among TLD holders to advance the cause of building a stable,
> > collision free namespace. All TLD holders are welcome to become members of
> > the TLDA."
> >
> > 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.
>
> It is very interesting that you have raised this issue within such a short time
> (mere hours) after I gained the 10 endorsements required in the election.  My
> views are quite well known to you and many on this list.

  Well at least those that are public are well known, yes.  Other PRIVATE
comments that you have solicited or made are not.  This leaves one with
wondering which of you two faces is the real Patrick, doesn't it?

>  In fact, you and I
> spent several hours discussing them in Melbourne before you asked me to join you
> in the campaign.  I advised you at that time of the proposed TLD Association.
>
> It is true that I have accepted a position as a Director of the Top Level Domain
> Association but I cannot see any mention in the mission statement which you just
> quoted that this association is directed towards "the alternative root
> community".  That is your interpretation only.

  Indeed.  Well if it supports in any way other root structures or TLD's that
ICANN is not supporting than by a loose definition the TLDA supports
the "the alternative root community".  However this is not a bad thing
necessarily.  The idea that a TLD operator OWNS or HOLDS a
TLD is a bad thing.  The stakeholders OWN the TLD's not the
Operator of the TLD or Root structure...

>
>
> It is my understanding that the TLDA aims to encompass all "top level domains"
> whether these are included in the ICANN system or otherwise.  In other words
> membership will be open to ccTLDs, the new gTLDs, chartered TLDs, and "inclusive
> root" TLDs.  In fact, I hope any TLD will be welcome to join the association.

  Great!  However the concept of anyone or any entity OWNING a TLD is
inconsistent with reality.

>
>
> In making that statement, I should make it clear that the TLDA has only just
> been formed.  It has not yet developed its policies or indeed its bylaws.  At
> present there are no members, from the alternative community or anywhere else.

  Isn't Richard Sexton the Vice president???

>
>
> > 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?
>
> On Sunday, March 18, 2001 8:57 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > > The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and
> > > historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the
> > > matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not
> > > related to ICANN.
>
> Nevertheless, I have raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest issue
> with quite a few people and some of what I say here is taken from private
> correpondence and cited without attribution.  I will provide details if granted
> permission.

  Anything I have stated privately or publicly has my permission to be posted
anywhere anytime.  I don't have two agendas, Patrick....  >;)

>
>
> In all cases, the informed view was that the alternative TLDs are "outside
> ICANN's area of control".  This means that they are outside the scope of ICANN's
> supporting organizations' (including the GA of the DNSO) "area of control".
>
> As I understand it, the new internationalized domain name systems are running on
> so-called "alternate" roots and I have asked members of the ICANN Board, and
> other noted persons, whether ICANN has any official policy on alternate roots.
>
> >From this research it is clear that ICANN has no specific policy on altenate
> roots other than consensus with the IAB statement on a single set of roots.
> This statement is not really a policy against alternate roots but a statement
> that they are not really DNS roots and that there can only be one "true" root.
>
> I have also been informed that the by-laws of ICANN talk about 'the root server
> system' and that this implicitly specifies a set of roots.  As you may know
> ICANN made non-compliance with alt roots a condition of bidding for new gTLDs.
> This was not based on any policy other than the IAB statement noted above.

  The ICANN BoD's position is pretty well known as you indicate indirectly here.
However that is the BoD's position not necessarily the stakeholders.  This is
a clear distinction that is and indication that the ICANN BoD is not acting
in the best interest of the stakeholders, and therefore is not in compliance
with the MoU and the White Paper.

>
>
> However, you should understand that if ICANN had such a policy it would an
> arguable restraint on competition and trade.  It would also possibly be illegal.
>
> I have also corresponded with Karl Auerbach on many issues relating to
> alternative roots following my posting of his "Multple Roots" article, or a
> reference to it, on, I believe, two lists including NANOG.  I concur with this
> point of view and would promote it onlist in any relevant postings.
>
> http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots
>
> I am sure that Karl's views are well enough known as a result of this work that
> he would not mind me quoting one sentence  He said "There are people who adhere
> to the IAB statement and there are people, such as myself, who do not".
>
> > Up until a few days ago, I was fully prepared to endorse Patrick Corliss for
> > the Chairmanship of this Assembly.  These recent events have made me
> > reconsider my position.  I respect Patrick's efforts to work in his own way
> > towards achieving the goal of a stable Internet; I still believe that
> > Patrick is a pioneer and visionary with a heart of gold and a passion for
> > safeguarding the rights of Individuals.
>
> I appreciate your kind words and understand your motivations.  In fact, I have
> the utmost respect for your hard work and regret that the election rules
> required us to compete "head-to-head" rather than on a joint platform with you
> as Chair.
>
> However, I did suggest there was at least a possibility that I might achieve a
> better result and this might cause you hurt and disappointment.  I truly
> considered conceding to you in order to avoid such a scenario.  I also raised,
> onlist, the possibility of  endorsing rival candidates and reminded you to
> endorse yourself.
>
> On Friday, March 30, 2001 4:04 PM (AEST), I wrote:
> > > It seems to me that if there is some arbitrary rule that we should have 10
> > > endorsements, all candidates should follow Eric's lead and endorse all other
> > > candidates.
>
> I am concerned that Danny has raised this issue and this strengthens my support
> of Joanna Lane's resolution that the GA hold a proper election rather than just
> handing over the decision making to the Names Council.  However, I do not feel
> it is appropriate to withdraw and throw my weight behind another candidate.

  Your weight?  ROFLMAO!

>
>
> It has also been suggested to me, privately, that the Names Council would be
> reluctant to endorse a candidate that it felt was not aligned with ICANN.  I
> would make it clear that I fully support ICANN and merely wish to assist ICANN
> in fulfilling its charter.   I believe this can be achieved in a way that
> unites, rather than divides, the major participants.

  How about all participants and all stakeholders?  Or don't they count in
your opinion?

>
>
> > 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.
>
> My view is that there is no conflict of interest.  The reasoning is explained
> very well by Leah Gallegos in her response to your posting.  I fully concur with
> her views as stated in several postings.
>
> There is also a timing difference which I will discuss later in my response.
>
> > 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.
>
> I deliberately drew everybody's attention to my views during the election itself
> when given the opportunity.  I made my views loud and clear in a recent posting,
> on Friday, March 30, 2001 3:46 PM (AEST), in which I said:
>
> Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body
> > That is not the case externally as ICANN has chosen to ignore competing root
> > systems as being outside of its sphere of influence or control.  Other roots,
> > such as ORSC and New.Net are operating independently to some extent outside of
> > ICANN.
> >
> > Unless and until, ICANN makes a concerted effort to join with those
> > independent roots in a co-operative arrangement, they are following the
> > competitive model.  It is as if they are somehow not part of a shared
> > internet.  It doesn't make sense to me.

  Yes but this is only your publicly attributed views.  It seems from
several exchanges you and I had today and yesterday that your public
views and your private ones do no coincide well....  As such, one
can only wonder which views are the real ones....  Or do you have
two agenda's?

>
>
> My view remains that it is in the interests of the internet community that ICANN
> should seek a co-operative arrangement in order to avoid collisions in the
> namespace.  I see the true position as akin to the official medical authorities
> working with acupuncturists and those advocating natural childbirth or similar
> alternative therapies.
>
> I believe that both should work together to improve the health of the community.

  They do.  Your point?

>
>
> On Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:16 AM (AEST),
> Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com> wrote;
> Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
>
> > Significantly, this was two days after he became a Director of the Top Level
> > Domain Association, formed March 22, but he failed to disclose that fact.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01534.html
>
> Since writing the above Joanna's post has come to my attention.  I would add
> that the day after my acceptance, on 25 March, I published a statement on the
> TLDA website at http://www.tlda.org/official/corliss_conflict.html.  This says:
>
> <quote>
> I, Patrick Corliss, make the following declaration:
>
> (1) Member of auDA, director of auDA, member DNSO GA, member ICANN "at
> large", nominee for Chair of DNSO GA, professional memberships.
>
> (2) Either personally or as the proprietor of a company (Quad Quality Addressing
> Pty Ltd) I hold domain names and top-level domains. I also provide reseller and
> consultancy services.
>
> I expect that I may publish news or articles about the DNS.
>
> It is my honest professional opinion that these activities are not in conflict
> with the expected aims and objectives of the TLDA but are, in fact, closely
> aligned with them. I would be happy to provide any further clarification if
> needed.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> <end quote>
>
> On 27 March, I also made a disclosure to the auDA Board to a similar effect.  It
> was clear to me, at the time, that there was no conflict of interest and I then
> sought informed advice over the next couple of days (which I have referenced
> above).  In fact, I now intend to provide a copy of this reply to both bodies.
>
> That advice, all of which was received on 29 March (almost the last day of the
> election period) was quite clear.  There is no conflict of interest.  In the
> circumstances it was not appropriate to make such a declaration.
>
> I note that Danny Younger has declared that he does "work" for Register.com, and
> I'd ask whether it would be his intention to "recuse" from any and all registrar
> matters that may come before the GA.  If so, this would be a singularly
> ineffective representation.
>
> Finally, I would say that ICANN, Chairman, Vint Cert, has stated that ICANN has
> no authority over the alt. roots or New.net.  That being said, the TLDA was
> formed to complement ICANN and not to work against its US Government  mission.
>
> My other interests have been declared to be *outside* of ICANN's authority.  My
> aim is to bring them together.  If I succeed I will then declare a "conflict of
> interest".  And I'll be happy to do so !!

  Well you better do it now than because it is clear from these comments
alone you have one....  >;)

>
>
> > Best regards,
> > Danny Younger
>
> Very sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > --
> > 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@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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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