Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
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
- 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 !!!!
On 22:02 30/03/01, William X. Walsh said:
>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
> > It is my understanding that the TLDA aims to encompass all "top level
> > whether these are included in the ICANN system or otherwise. In other
> > membership will be open to ccTLDs, the new gTLDs, chartered TLDs, and
> > root" TLDs. In fact, I hope any TLD will be welcome to join the
>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.
> William mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
>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