Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE 
TLDA

Eric:

Let me just ask a question.  Are members of the registry 
constuency, IPC, non-commercial at all biased for their positions?  
Would that preclude a member from competing for chair of the GA?  

It seems to me that there would be no one eligible if affiliation with 
other organizations were a negative criteria.  Patrick is known to be 
in favor of a voice for individuals.  I do not see that as negative or 
a conflict.  Many GA members also enjoy the Inclusive Name Space 
TLDs, as does an ICANN board member.  There are many GA 
members who are TLD holders.  That is not a conflict.

It is my understanding, as I have said before, that ALL TLD holders 
are welcome to join the TLDA.  This includes the DoC and DoC could 
have ICANN represent them.  If the premise is to open 
communication among all parties, how is this in any way a conflict?  
Bringing the Internet community together is supposed to be the aim 
of these organizations.

I happen to believe that Patrick is a very reasonable individual and 
strives for fairness to all sides.  If the GA is to be representative of 
the community, can it exclude those who have disagreements with 
any segment?  

Again, there is no conflict and if asked questions on a wide range of 
topics rather than focusing on one, I believe you would find that 
Patrick is not in a rut at all and the GA is not anywhere near 
capture by those who wish to have an open Internet.  If there is 
any capture, it is by a powerful minority of commercial interests.  It 
is certainly not by the general community.  We have had no voice.

> I do not really see a direct conflict.  However if I understand the
> term correctly I am watching a capture.  This seems to be the product
> of apathy in general and great interest on the other.  I do not view
> this as a good or bad thing, neutral. Who ever can rally the troops
> can take control.  It would appear that the TLDA, is the one rallying
> the troops, I guess I better go over and join so as not to be left
> out. So then the problem is when we give Corliss over to the Council
> to ratify as our leader but it is clear that his position came from a
> very direct influence that is supporting a very specific agenda, must
> they ratify him or is that a good reason to pick a person more
> reflective of the GA which at this point is an Assembly within what
> would seem to be a competing organization. ( a radical cybersquatter
> cannot be a member of the IP, a non-ccTLD manager cannot be a member
> of the ccTLD)
> 
> These are just questions I have not developed a firm opinion on this
> matter but feel we should address them, thanks to Danny and Corliss
> for bringing them to the forefront.
> 
> jp@ADNS.NET wrote:
> 
> > [THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
> > THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA]
> >
> > I would like to second Leah's message below.
> >
> > The TLDA (www.tlda.org) is an inclusive organization. While some
> > folks who are working in the TLDA may disagree with the direction
> > that ICANN has taken, this does not mean that there is a conflict of
> > interest.
> >
> > We all want the same thing - a stable, collision free internet
> > namespace. ICANN happens to beleive that they should be the ones to
> > control the one and only root network. Many others, including myself
> > beleive that there can be many root networks and that it is in
> > everyone's best interest to avoid collisions.
> >
> > There are IP issues here. While the USPTO and several courts seem to
> > beleive that there are no ownership rights of TLDs, there are still
> > IP rights. TLDs are business products and it is wrong (and probably
> > illegal) for the USG to take someone's business product away without
> > just compensation (5th Amendment takings clause).
> >
> > Many of us have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on
> > developing our business products and should not be disenfranchised
> > by one organization claiming to have the right to control
> > everything. I think that what ICANN is proposing with .BIZ (that the
> > USG take this business product from AtlanticRoot) is wrong. ICANN
> > should respect the business products of other organizations and
> > should avoid selecting colliding TLDs.
> >
> > ICANN and DNSO have done positive things in the past. I think the
> > TLDA will move in the direction of focusing on those things and will
> > try to foster a good working environment. If there is animosity and
> > conflict, it will not come from TLDA.
> >
> > ICANN/DNSO really needs to drop this "God Complex". They do not own
> > the process and never will. The internet is too big and there are
> > too many other points of view out there.
> >
> > There is no conflict of interest here. Both TLDA and ICANN/DNSO
> > claim to have the same goals - a stable, growing internet. Because
> > of this, I do not consider my position on the TLDA board and my
> > status as a voting member of the GA to be in conflict.
> >
> > John Palmer
> > http://www.adns.net
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>
> > To: <ga@dnso.org>; "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> >
> > > Danny:
> > >
> > > I respectfully strongly disagree with you in your assertion that
> > > there would be a conflict of interest with participation in both
> > > the GA and the TLDA.  Please note that the mission statement reads
> > > "ALL TLD holders are welcome to join the TLDA."  This includes DoC
> > > as well. All means ALL Why, then would you perceive a conflict
> > > when the goal is to have everyone at the table in a cooperative
> > > manner?
> > >
> > > In addition, the press release was also clear with regards to this
> > > being an initial board with limited terms of service.
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope that the GA would not wish to discriminate
> > > against TLD holders in this fashion.  There are many members,
> > > including myself who are TLD holders and strong advocates for
> > > individual domain name holders as well.  I see absolutely no
> > > conflict whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Patrick Corliss is an honest and principled man, IMO, who would
> > > serve the GA well.  This assembly is made up of every conceivable
> > > Internet particpant, from the IP interests all the way to the end
> > > user.  If you would discriminate against a TLD holder who is a
> > > member, then why not a user who may disagree with you?  If
> > > involvement in formation of the TLDA is grounds for conflict, then
> > > surely IP interests are grounds, participation in WIPO, as well as
> > > membership in the ISP/C or any other trade association or industry
> > > specific organization.  There are many voting members of the GA
> > > who actively participate in trade associations.  Using your
> > > criteria, no one from other constituencies would qualify to run
> > > for GA chair.
> > >
> > > How many voices would be silenced in typical ICANN fashion if
> > > membership in other organizations were criteria for discrimination
> > > in the GA?  Half?
> > >
> > > I would ask you to reconsider your statements regarding any
> > > alleged conflict of interest on the part of Patrick.  It is
> > > non-existent.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Leah Gallegos
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Danny Younger
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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