[ga] Re: NCDNHC - organizational conflict of interests. (Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Board Solicits Input from NCC on .org Redelegation)

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

Thomas and all,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-07-09 17:21:59 -0400, t byfield wrote:
>
> >it'll be amusing to watch ICANN's diligent staffers twist their
> >rhetoric into n-dimensional klein pretzels in an effort to justify
> >the rigorous application of COI policies to the NCDNHC across the
> >board while ignoring blokzijl's specific issues -- to say nothing
> >of the nearly categorical COI issues posed by ISOC. i wish them
> >the best of luck.
>
> The ISOC proposal will indeed produce all kinds of interesting
> conflicts.  But that hasn't much to do with the NCDNHC's specific
> situation.

  How so Thomas?  Isn't the ISOC a member of the NCDNHC?

>
>
> On 2002-07-09 17:36:09 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> 07/09/02 05:06PM >>>
> >> - To what extent would member organizations of the NCDNHC profit
> >>   from the suggestions in the individual proposals? (Besides
> >>   "non-profits" profting generically from the proposal, of course.)
>
> >Harold made it clear that any member organization associated with
> >a bid will not be part of the evaluation team.
>
> In order to have a non-generical benefit from a specific proposal,
> an organization does not need to be associated with that proposal.
> This is in fact demonstrated by the GNR proposal.

  The GNR proposal demonstrates nothing of the kind that I can
see Thomas.  It is just another proposal, nothing more or less...

>
>
> >Whether the travel assistance proposed by GNR is "better" or
> >"worse" as a form of support than what is proposed by other
> >applicants is quite an open question.
>
> It's a question which should not be answered by the NCDNHC.

  Why not?  In fact, the NCDNHC is the primary constituency that
should answer such questions.  But not the only one...

>
>
> >The idea that we cannot evaluate that proposal makes absolutely no
> >sense.
>
> The NCDNHC is, basically, broke (at least, it can't pay its bills to
> the DNSO).  There has been no travel funding for the Bucharest
> meetings.

  Yes the NCDNHC does have ongoing funding problems.  So does
ICANN as a whole.  However I don't see this as really all that
relevant.

>
>
> Now, GNR offers travel scholarships for non-commercial entities (C
> 38.3.4, bullet point 4; C35), and suggests a steering committee
> which is supposed to involve the NCDNHC: "The ".org Steering
> Committee" (OSC) will be established as a liaison between the .org
> registry and the non-commercial constituency of ICANN [...]

  Why is an "OSC" even needed with the NCDNHC constituency
already in place and available?  Could the "OSC" proposed, be
yet another level of complexity so as to circumvent the NCDNHC
perhaps?  Sure seems that is the case...

> The OSC
> will include the leadership of the ICANN's non-commercial
> constituency and the .org registry, as well as from the .orgcentre
> and the Causeway Community Foundation." (C35)
>
> Even if the NCDNHC is not "associated" with the bid, it would
> clearly benefit from it.  Combine this with the constituency's
> chronical lack of funding, and you have a perfect example for a
> conflict of interests situation: If the NCDNHC team recommends the
> kind of "responsiveness to the noncommercial internet user
> community" suggested by GNR, this will be called self-interested.
> If the NCDNHC doesn't recommend it, chilling effects of possible
> conflicts of interest may be quoted.  In either case, the
> recommendation could be plausibly attacked as not being objective.

  Perhaps true here Thomas.  Perhaps not as well.  In any event,
or in either case the GNR proposal is not all that relevant regardless.

>
>
> (This isn't made easier by the rather fuzzy criteria the NCDNHC
> will have to cover...)
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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:  972-244-3801 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