Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #322
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 322

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:04:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: One comment from Mr Touton in a Teleconference does not a rule make

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:01:19 +0200, you wrote:

>At 14:22 30/03/2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>At 16:58 29/03/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>
>> >In conclusion,  I move that the so called "rule of ten" be dismissed by a
>> >formal motion of the GA voting assembly, then the NC will have the guidance
>> >they obviously need.
>> >
>>
>>Seconded.
>>There is nothing to stop us from proceeding with an election of all
>>endorsed candidates.
>
>Indeed, the GA, by its own rule, has no choice but to proceed with an 
>election from all the candidates endorsed by 2 or more people.
>
>And I believe that the NC wishes to follow the result of such an election.
>
>But *in order to make sure nobody can challenge the NC decision to do so*, 
>it would be a Good Thing to have all relevant candidates have 10 or more 
>endorsements.
>
>If we are to become an organization that follows the rules, we have to 
>follow the rules, not cavalierly dismiss them when they get in our way.
>Even when the rules in question are a result of not thinking things through.

The way I read the rules is that for our internal election we only
need two endorsements.  Once we have had our internal election we will
formally nominate just one candidate to the Names Council (the winner
of the internal election) and that candidate will have probably 20+
formal endorsements to meet the NC criteria.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:41:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Names Council vote

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Peter,
>
> You seem to think that looking at real and practical differences between
> the old-vs-new contracts is somehow relevant.
>
> Shame on you.  You should know better than to try to inject serious
> analysis into the fray.

Hi Dave,

I still haven't seen your detailed analysis of the proposal. Did I miss
it?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:24:35 -0500
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:50:53 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
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-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:30:00 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Finally the issue of where new.net and ORSC go to resolve their conflicts 
is decided.

We invite them to join a completely new organization.

Lovely.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 08:41:50 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsement of Patrick Corliss

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> I consider that self-endorsement is essentially meaningless and should be taken
> as self-evident.

It is certainly redundant, given the candidate's prior acceptance.  Fortunately, it
was also unnecessary under the GA rules, as Patrick had 5 prior endorsements at the
time, and qualified for the GA ballot.  And, he now has more than the 10 "needed" to
qualify under the presumed NC rules for its consideration.

Thus,  his comments are only a reminder that this issue needs to be revisited after
the (s)election.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:49:29 -0500
From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Perhaps we should all sit down and draft a set of dispute resolution
policies for them.

Reminds me of the Marx brothers movie, where the trio have broken into a
house and are searching for a missing key and one suggests, "maybe its
hidden in the house next door." 

When Chico replies "there IS no house next door" Groucho declares, "then
let's build one!" and they immediately set to work drawing up house plans. 

Bill Semich

At 04:30 PM 3/30/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Finally the issue of where new.net and ORSC go to resolve their conflicts 
>is decided.
>
>We invite them to join a completely new organization.
>
>Lovely.
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
>+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
>Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [email-masked]
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:45:12 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I don't know why you would make that statement, Harald.  ORSC is 
not a TLD holder, for one thing.  There are ORSC participants who 
are, however.  The TLDA is a trade association, just as the ISP/C is 
a trade association.  By the same token, I'll bet there are ISPs who 
are TLD holders.  

I, personally, would invite anyone to discuss this issue on the tlda 
list.  I doubt it is appropriate on the GA list.  However, to alleviate 
any misconceptions regarding what we are all about, let me 
emphasize that TLD holders are welcome in this association, just as 
ISP's are welcome to that association, real estate agents are 
welcome in their association and attorneys are welcome in theirs.  
All are also eligible to join the GA.

Please don't misconstrue the objectives of a trade association or 
assume they are opposed to the objectives of the GA.  In my 
opinion, they should work well together.

> Finally the issue of where new.net and ORSC go to resolve their
> conflicts is decided.
> 
> We invite them to join a completely new organization.
> 
> Lovely.

Such skepticism, Harald. :)  You haven't even looked into what it's 
all about.  It's not a secret society, you know.

Regards, 

Leah

> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
> Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [email-masked]
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:01:05 -0600
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[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" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
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-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:53:52 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> Perhaps we should all sit down and draft a set of dispute resolution
> policies for them.

Sarcasm aside, this is strictly my opinion, but heaven deliver us 
from another UDRP!  That is the last thing any of us want to see 
and I certainly would not support such a mechanism within a trade 
association.  

> 
> Reminds me of the Marx brothers movie, where the trio have broken into
> a house and are searching for a missing key and one suggests, "maybe
> its hidden in the house next door." 
> 
> When Chico replies "there IS no house next door" Groucho declares,
> "then let's build one!" and they immediately set to work drawing up
> house plans. 
> 
> Bill Semich
> 
> At 04:30 PM 3/30/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >Finally the issue of where new.net and ORSC go to resolve their
> >conflicts is decided.
> >
> >We invite them to join a completely new organization.
> >
> >Lovely.
> >--
> >Harald Tveit Alvestrand       At Cisco  : [email-masked]
> >+47 41 44 29 94               IETF chair: [email-masked]
> >Which of me do you want?      Just me   : [email-masked]
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:07:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The TLDA is still very much in formation. The names you list below,
are members of the initial board, that will set up the TLDA. There are
so far no bylaws, members etc. The initial board will sit only
for two months or so. 

Helping to bootstrap an organisation with goals that you applaud, can
that create a conflict of interest?

In any case, I think the TLDA has been wise not to go too public
(without hiding its efforts either) before it has a clear structure in
place. We do not want another group of people just talking and
fighting, do we, in the arena of DNS politics? So waiting until the
organisation is in place seems to me a wise decision.

For the record: I hold no position in the TLDA. I am just subscribed
to the mailing list it started some weeks back. And although a mere
particpant here, let me add, that I operate one of the root-servers of
the ORSC root. No conflict of interest in my eyes. But still, you all
know now.

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, at 08:24 [=GMT-0500], babybows.com
wrote:

> 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-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 09:50:29 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Danny, was the first sentence of the paragraph I singled out written as you 
intended?

I did not understand that and it's difficult for me to comprehend them 
discriminating and not wanting to participate with the USG as well...  I 
understood their goal was to create a process to avoid collisions in 
namespace in addition to resolving existing conflicts where necessary ...

??

:)

~k

At 05:24 AM 3/30/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed (www.tlda.org).

<snip>

>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.

<snip>

>Best regards,
>Danny Younger
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Kristy McKee  -  -  -  -  612.823.2418

For every ten people who are clipping
at the branches of evil, you're lucky to
find one who's hacking at the roots.

   -  -  -  -  -  -  Henry David Thoreau
(1817-1862) American philosopher

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:01:55 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Level Domain Association - NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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.

[email-masked] 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" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
> 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-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #322
************************