Re[2]: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

I see this supposed conflict of interest as a pure misunderstanding.
I think I may clarify this due to my own positions irt the TLDA.

1. The "alternative root" does not exist except in history

2. The "inclusive root" corresponds to the real Internet root
     made of zone servers description, including iCANNs, Chinese,
     ccTLDs, multiorganization TLDs (RFC 920) and private TLDs.
     cf. a previous post opposed by Harald on "religious" rather
     than on technical grounds.

3. the charter/bylaws of the iCANN ask iCANN to:

     - treat them all equal as you know
     - forbide iCANN to act as a Registry what they it does for top
       level names.
     - foster competition what they do not do in trying to
       limitate the number of TLDs. There are today 469 known
       multi-organization and private TLDs.

     As such any attempt by people like Patick Corliss, Gene
     Marsh, Leah Gallagos, Michael Fromkin and others to
     develop the TLDA  is therefore in strict conformance with the
     White Paper and the bylaws  that (current) BoD (partly) and
     Staff seem not to conform with.

4. I personnaly disagree with the TLDA initiative on several
     issues (I dont want them to become a defacto TLD registry).
     But I certainly support their approach of being a TLD
     industry professional association and representaitive.

     I certainly support that NSI and other gTLDs and ccTLDs
     become a Member, and I investigated that possibility as
     a potential supporter of the TLDA.

5. I note that :

     -  several TLDA founding members supported  the creation
        of the sTLD center of interest within the WG-Review (as
        was created the IDNH center of interest).

     -  Patrick farily campaigns with the same enthusiasm and
        dedication at the GA and at the ORSC (this lead us to
        disagree/clash several times)

6. I note that Patrick belongs first to the ccTLD community
     and that one iCANN Director holds a private TLD. If there
     was a conflict this should be first addressed. IMHO it has
     been clearly addressed by Vint Cerf saying that it was
     "not his cup of tea".

7. I wish to recall you that the official position expressed
     by the BoD at the MDR GAC meeting in response to the
     question of a Governement Delegate "how many TLDs
     may the DNS support?" is "one million". We can reasonably
     thank that among this million TLD manager, the TLDA has
     a reasonable number of potentiial Members :-) ?

8. I add that my own position is somewhat particular as I
     am setting up several multi-organization TLDs the iCANN
     will probably not acknowledge while they are described
     in RFC 920 as part of the Legacy. This means that the
     TLDA would be for my members a way to represent their
     rights *within* the iCANN itself.

     Defending Legacy rights within the iCANN policy and
     structure can hardly be qualified as a conflict of interest
     of a GA CHair candidate !!!!

Jefsey













On 22:02 30/03/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Patrick,
>
>Friday, March 30, 2001, 9:52:35 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>Patrick, this is more than a little disingenuous, to claim that the
>TLDA is not an effort of what is recognized as the alternative root
>community.
>
> > 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.
>
>While this may be true, none of done so, nor have any expressed an
>interest in doing so.  The TLDA was born completely out of the
>alternative root community, and all of its board/officers are well
>known from that community.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>My problem with the above is that the GA Chair is not there to be an
>advocate in any way for his own views.  S/He is there to be the
>conduit to the NC for the views of the GA.
>
> > 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.
>
>My view is that the alternative root systems should earn the right to
>be recognized by ICANN or anyone else in this type of way. They have
>not done so, in that their TLDs are not visible by the internet
>community in any number that would indicate they have been successful
>in achieving anything resembling widespread use or support.
>
>Until they do so, there is no need, justification, or reason, for
>any organization, including ICANN, to seek accommodations with them.
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>
>
>--
>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