Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

I do not really see a direct conflict.  However if I understand the term
correctly I am watching a capture.  This seems to be the product of apathy in
general and great interest on the other.  I do not view this as a good or bad
thing, neutral. Who ever can rally the troops can take control.  It would appear
that the TLDA, is the one rallying the troops, I guess I better go over and join
so as not to be left out.
So then the problem is when we give Corliss over to the Council to ratify as our
leader but it is clear that his position came from a very direct influence that
is supporting a very specific agenda, must they ratify him or is that a good
reason to pick a person more reflective of the GA which at this point is an
Assembly within what would seem to be a competing organization.
( a radical cybersquatter cannot be a member of the IP, a non-ccTLD manager
cannot be a member of the ccTLD)

These are just questions I have not developed a firm opinion on this matter but
feel we should address them, thanks to Danny and Corliss for bringing them to
the forefront.

jp@ADNS.NET wrote:

> [THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE
> OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA]
>
> I would like to second Leah's message below.
>
> The TLDA (www.tlda.org) is an inclusive organization. While some folks who
> are working in the TLDA may disagree with the
> direction that ICANN has taken, this does not mean that there is a conflict
> of interest.
>
> We all want the same thing - a stable, collision free internet namespace.
> ICANN happens to beleive that they
> should be the ones to control the one and only root network. Many others,
> including myself beleive that
> there can be many root networks and that it is in everyone's best interest
> to avoid collisions.
>
> There are IP issues here. While the USPTO and several courts seem to beleive
> that there are no ownership
> rights of TLDs, there are still IP rights. TLDs are business products and it
> is wrong (and probably illegal)
> for the USG to take someone's business product away without just
> compensation (5th Amendment takings clause).
>
> Many of us have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on developing our
> business products and should
> not be disenfranchised by one organization claiming to have the right to
> control everything. I think that what
> ICANN is proposing with .BIZ (that the USG take this business product from
> AtlanticRoot) is wrong.
> ICANN should respect the business products of other organizations and should
> avoid selecting colliding TLDs.
>
> ICANN and DNSO have done positive things in the past. I think the TLDA will
> move in the direction of
> focusing on those things and will try to foster a good working environment.
> If there is animosity and conflict,
> it will not come from TLDA.
>
> ICANN/DNSO really needs to drop this "God Complex". They do not own the
> process and never will.
> The internet is too big and there are too many other points of view out
> there.
>
> There is no conflict of interest here. Both TLDA and ICANN/DNSO claim to
> have the same goals - a
> stable, growing internet. Because of this, I do not consider my position on
> the TLDA board and my
> status as a voting member of the GA to be in conflict.
>
> John Palmer
> http://www.adns.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>; "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
>
> > Danny:
> >
> > I respectfully strongly disagree with you in your assertion that there
> > would be a conflict of interest with participation in both the GA and
> > the TLDA.  Please note that the mission statement reads "ALL TLD
> > holders are welcome to join the TLDA."  This includes DoC as well.
> > All means ALL Why, then would you perceive a conflict when the
> > goal is to have everyone at the table in a cooperative manner?
> >
> > In addition, the press release was also clear with regards to this
> > being an initial board with limited terms of service.
> >
> > I sincerely hope that the GA would not wish to discriminate against
> > TLD holders in this fashion.  There are many members, including
> > myself who are TLD holders and strong advocates for individual
> > domain name holders as well.  I see absolutely no conflict
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > Patrick Corliss is an honest and principled man, IMO, who would
> > serve the GA well.  This assembly is made up of every conceivable
> > Internet particpant, from the IP interests all the way to the end
> > user.  If you would discriminate against a TLD holder who is a
> > member, then why not a user who may disagree with you?  If
> > involvement in formation of the TLDA is grounds for conflict, then
> > surely IP interests are grounds, participation in WIPO, as well as
> > membership in the ISP/C or any other trade association or industry
> > specific organization.  There are many voting members of the GA
> > who actively participate in trade associations.  Using your criteria,
> > no one from other constituencies would qualify to run for GA chair.
> >
> > How many voices would be silenced in typical ICANN fashion if
> > membership in other organizations were criteria for discrimination in
> > the GA?  Half?
> >
> > I would ask you to reconsider your statements regarding any alleged
> > conflict of interest on the part of Patrick.  It is non-existent.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Leah Gallegos
> >
> > > On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed
> > > (www.tlda.org).
> > >
> > > Preliminary participants in this association include six members of
> > > the Voting Registry of the GA:
> > >
> > > Patrick Corliss - Director
> > > Leah Gallegos - Director
> > > Miles Eugene Marsh - Chairman of the Board
> > > John Palmer - Secretary
> > > Bruce James - Initial Advisory Committee member
> > > Prof. A. Michael Froomkin - Initial Advisory Committee member
> > >
> > > A member of the Names Council, Milton Mueller, is similarly listed as
> > > an Initial Advisory Committee member, and assuredly other GA members
> > > will soon declare themselves as participants in the TLDA efforts.
> > >
> > > The mission statement of this association represents that it is a:
> > >  "trade association of Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) holders. This
> > > organization represents the interests of TLD Holders and will seek to
> > > foster cooperation among TLD holders to advance the cause of building
> > > a stable, collision free namespace. All TLD holders are welcome to
> > > become members of the TLDA."
> > >
> > > While I loudly applaud the efforts of the alternate root community to
> > > seek out efforts to eliminate collisions in their own namespace, I
> > > find myself deeply troubled by the fact that none of these members
> > > that routinely participate on the GA list have commented on this
> > > development in the midst of this GA election cycle.
> > >
> > > What has happened to the concept of openness and transparency by which
> > > we are expected to abide?    The Bylaws of our Corporation point to
> > > the need for full disclosure of "conflicts of interest" by members of
> > > our Board; can we expect anything less from candidates to the highest
> > > office of the GA?
> > >
> > > Up until a few days ago, I was fully prepared to endorse Patrick
> > > Corliss for the Chairmanship of this Assembly.  These recent events
> > > have made me reconsider my position.  I respect Patrick's efforts to
> > > work in his own way towards achieving the goal of a stable Internet; I
> > > still believe that Patrick is a pioneer and visionary with a heart of
> > > gold and a passion for safeguarding the rights of Individuals.
> > >
> > > But I cannot approve of his decision to both accept a position as a
> > > Director of the TLDA, and to simultaneously run for the office of
> > > Chair of this General Assembly.
> > >
> > > I look forward to working with Patrick, and with the many of you that
> > > respect the fact that the worldwide Internet community includes the
> > > alternate root system - but I believe that in this instance, Patrick
> > > made an error in judgement... one cannot effectively serve two such
> > > disparate masters.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Danny Younger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
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