Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

hello all..

i apologize for not involving myself  earlier but i would like to take a
moment to clarify a few items
in the thread.

1. neither javier or kent are members of core
2. i have been the chairman of core since april 1998 and during my tenure:
neither kent nor javier has ever been in attendance, either  personally or
by telephone,  in any core general meeting, or executive committee meeting
nor have they been  actively involved in any core working committees.
3. during my tenure they have not been involved in any financial capacity or
consulting capacity with core as well. ( i can research the records back to
our formation in november 1997 if you wish but frankly i believe i would not
find anything.

i am personally appealing to all working group members to "stay focused on
our tasks and not become diverted. there are ample forums to go to to "vent"
but honestly, i feel that these lists are not them.

thanks for hearing me out

ken stubbs



-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal


>Javier SOLA wrote:
>
>> I am NOT a member of CORE.
>> I have, at no time, advocated that CORE should be the registry to run ANY
gTLD.
>> I believe that ICANN should be the one to publish a call for tender for
new
>> registries. Our job is to define the policy and try to figure out what
the
>> community wants. I personally believe in multiple registries, to give
>> stability to the system.
>
>The relationship between Sola and CORE/gTLD-MoU is a factual issue that can
be
>documented pretty easily.
>
>Sola played a major role in the RFP and design of the CORE database system.
See
>http://www.aui.es/core/core101.html for documentation. In that document,
dated
>8/97, Sola writes: "The actual number of registrations per day under .com
seems to
>be of 18.000 per day. We have to be able to do, at least, two to four times
that
>amount, that is, 36.000 to 72.000 per day, in order to assure that the
basic
>system can last at least for two or three years."
>
>Who is the "we" in the preceding sentence?
>
>CORE was a creature of the gTLD-MoU, an alternative governance structure
created
>by the Internet Society in alliance with ITU and WIPO in 1997. Javier Sola
was
>elected to the Policy Advisory Board of the gTLD-MoU, and elected to the
Policy
>Oversight Committee (POC) of the gTLD-MoU on May 1, 1997.
>
>Kent Crispin was PAB Chair and also a POC observer, and consulted and
advised,
>along with Amadeu Abril, on Sola's CORE DB work.
>
>Please understand. There is nothing wrong with this association per se.
CORE, POC,
>
>and PAB members are legitimate participants in this working group--but they
have a
>
>distinct economic and political interest in the outcome, just as NSI or
Ambler's
>IOD do.
>
>When Kent Crispin and Javier Sola tell us that we ought to adopt the
specific
>names and the shared registry model developed by CORE/gTLD-MoU, everyone on
this
>list should be aware of the fact that this is not "impartial advice."
>
>I repeat: I have no objection to adding undisputed CORE gTLDs to the root
and no
>problem with letting established CORE registrars keep their
pre-registrations in
>all of those gTLDs. But to say that the CORE gTLDs and those *only* should
be
>added represents the kind of special interest pleading that this committee
must
>move beyond.
>
>--Milton Mueller
>
>
>