[ga] Re: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Dear Ken,

First, I would like to thank you for your very prompt and clear note
regarding your own interests in various LTD application.  My cc to you
was really intended as the Chair of the Names Council.  I believe your
own involvement in various applications has been pretty up front all
along, and I certainly appreciate your own example setting disclosure. 
My missive was really intended, however, for the Names Council itself,
and I would appreciate the Names Council addressing the issue of the
appropriate degree of disclosures that NC members should make, and if
such disclosures should be on the DNSO web page.  This isn't intended as
casting aspersions on anyone, but rather a more general practice that
would seem to enhance the confidence and effectiveness of the DNSO. 
Again, I will say that your own interests have always been quite
transparent, and indeed, also for many other NC members, and this is
mostly about making the process a bit more formal and complete.

Second, I think your request that members of the General Assembly also
make disclosures has merit.  I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that
this would be appropriate as a matter of policy as a condition of
participation, or as a matter of voluntary good practice.  

A request for disclosures of my interests is particularly appropriate,
because I push these disclosure issues from time to time.  

As you know, I work with the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT) and
Essential Information, and we had earlier filed expressions of interest
in several TLD strings.  And while we did not file an application for
the testbed, several others did, including those that included strings
for which we had earlier expressed interest.  However, I should also
note that we do not have any objection to any of the current TLD
applications on that grounds alone.  That is, as far as we are
concerned, if ICANN wants to approve a TLD string that we had expressed
earlier interest in, it is fine by us.  Indeed, I hope that ICANN
approves as many new TLDs as it can, consistent with ICANN
responsibilities to protect various user interests.  

Also, as you know, myself and Manon Ress have both been actively
interested in the creation of the .union domain, and while it was
proposed by John Richard and myself in March, we were all delighted that
the labor union movement has moved the application forward, and we are
very supportive of the excellant application by the labor union
consortium proposal, that was forwarded by the ICFTU.  Many and I both
gave advice on this one, particularly Manon, who words for a labor union
funded NGO.  But the most credit really goes to the ICFTU and the other
labor unions who worked out the proposal specifics, reached consensus,
and worked through the ICANN proposal.  

Manon Ress has also participated in discussions on the .eu proposal (a
ccTLD apparently), and has given quite a bit of advice to the group
headed by Affinity, which has proposed a restricted TLD for business
(asking for domain strings such as .biz, .ebiz, .firm, .inc and .real,
apparently in competition with your group), and I believe Manon may be
on an (unpaid) advisory board for this application (which I have not
seen).  Manon has also been working on a proposal for .humanrights, a
civil society TLD application that was not filed in this round, but
which may be filed later.  Unfortunately for our household, Manon's
advice on all of the above has been pro-bono.

 Jamie

Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> hello Jamie..
> 
> although I am confident that  you are aware that the names council plays no
> role in the selection process  (as I am familiar of your background and am
> quite certain you have read the proposal outlines and related material), I
> feel that your request for disclosure is most fair so here is mine:
> 
>  I am a member of the names council representing the registrar constituency
> 
> I am the current chairman of CORE and Core is involved in an application for
> a restricted TLD (.I.e. ".nom) as the proposing organization and in other
> applications as the back-end provider
> 
> I am also involved as a member of the board of managers of Afilias, llc
> www.afilias.com   ( in which CORE is a participant) in its proposal for an
> unrestricted TLD as well.
> 
> I am also an officer of iDomains, inc, which has proposed a restricted TLD
> (I.e. ".BIZ)
> 
> I am also an officer in Domainbank, Inc which is both a member of CORE (as
> you are aware, CORE is an association of companies)  as well as a separate
> participant in the afilias, llc organization which I represent on the
> Afilias, LLC  board of managers.
> 
> the selection process & related guidelines has been clearly outlined and can
> be viewed through links located at the following urls:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16aug00.htm
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr03aug00.htm
> 
> my very best wishes to you
> 
> ken stubbs
> p.s. i also would be most interested if you or any other regular ga
> contributors have provided direction, advice or consultation services to or
> whether you or your organization has any interest in any proposing entity as
> well
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <love@cptech.org>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:01 AM
> Subject: Names Council, new TLDs, and interests in pending applications
> 
> > This is a request that the Names Council address a basic issue
> > concerning ethics.  I would think that for starters, each member of the
> > Names Council should declare any interest they have in any pending TLD
> > applications (including interests as competitors), and they should adopt
> > procedures to address the issue of such interests.  The Names Council
> > should also indicate what role it should play in the selection process,
> > and how its rules regarding member interests in applications relate to
> > what the Names Council does.
> >
> > I am not asking that the Names Council members automatically recuse
> > themselves from any and all issues, and of course, some Names Council
> > members have zero interests in specific new applications, but have an
> > interest in stopping the new TLDs go forward, and so there are also
> > problems with limiting votes.
> >
> > A minimum standard would seem to be more disclosure, and more self
> > awareness of the issues that such interest present.  Even more is
> > probably appropriate.  The Names Council should really consider how it
> > can fairly address these issues, which are now front and center.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Love  mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
> > Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
> >

-- 
James Love  mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
--
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