Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 20-Apr-2000 James Love wrote:
> 3.  Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new
> registries?  (I haven't seen the tallys).  What do the ICANN bylaws
> provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council?  Is
> there anyone on the Names Council who doesn't have an "intereset" in
> this issue, if not a "conflict" of interest?  I'm not sure how ICANN
> deals with conflicts of interest.  It seems as though it kind of rewards
> conflicts, by giving you more votes, board seats, etc, than people
> without direct commerical interests in the outcome.  

Very astute observation, James.  



However, I will note that to some extent we ALL have an interest in the issue,
and probably a conflict of one sort of another.

But the DNSO Names Council is representative only of a very small subset of
those who have an interest and a stake in this process, and they go out of
their way to minimalize and dismiss the rest of us so they can justify going
their own way, unless what they want happens to agree with us, then they hold
it up as a shining example of consensus in action.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE4/n8N8zLmV94Pz+IRAoLuAJ9I3O3pnSCRbZphpwOe0zx3SGV4CgCgyGNe
MaJKmdcybYwFN+1U0TttqmY=
=3+Hn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----