Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
John and all remaining assembly members,
John I think you are a good fellow. However I must disagree
with your position here. As you know I unsubscribed myself from
the TLDA list until such time that a open discourse and discussion
forum for the TLDA was developed. I also saw sos troubling
thing starting to develop with the TLDA.ORG which I mentioned
at that time on your Mailing list. I will not repeat them here
as they are or should be archived for anyone to view for themselves.
The TLDA seems, and correct me if I am wrong, to be of the belief
that a TLD is owned/held or can be owned/held or should be
owned/held by whom ever or whatever entity chosen to do so.
This leads in a number of cases to orphaned TLD's. Not a good
idea. As you know there are some ccTLD's that are currently
orphaned as well as a number of gTLD's that are not operational,
or otherwise orphaned as well. This leads to inevitable conflict.
A registry can MANAGE a TLD, but not own it IMHO. A
registry of any TLD owners are the registrants, not the registry
itself. Ergo a TLD is a public resource.
As to you candidacy and this issue, it seems obvious to me that
given the TLDA's principals (Charter?) that as a executive of the
TLDA you are treading on conflict of interest grounds here...
> [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 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
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JandL" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>; "babybows.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 email@example.com list.
> > > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html