Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #323
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 30 2001            Volume 01 : Number 323

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:10:45 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot

Can somebody explain me where the problem is?
This is my POV.

1. We have 4 candidates that are all four eligible under our currently 
adopted rules to be included in the ballot to be issued by the Secretariat 
on 2001-03-31 (and this solves Joop's concern, as he expressed it below).
2. The NC has *its* procedures, never changed AFAIK, that include the "rule 
of ten" (as part of the 1999 rules): these are not GA rules, but NC rules, 
and as correctly pointed out by Joanna, NC should change them (if they 
wish), not us.
3. The NC has expressed its willingness to ratify the choice of the GA, 
therefore to appoint the candidate with more votes: it may do so even if the 
candidate has not received 10+ endorsments in the endorsment phase (but it 
may be source of embarassment).

I interpreted Harald's message in this way: please guarantee that every 
candidate fulfills *also* the 1999 requirements, so that we can avoid 
discussions, and we can avoid potential opposition by any individual member 
of the NC, that may raise formal objections.
I may incidentally note that the number of bytes needed to flow in the Net 
to provide the missing endorsement to the candidates that still did not pass 
the 10 cap is substantially lower than the number of bytes flowing in this 
argumentation.

In any case, I believe that a motion of the GA on this subject is out of 
order for the following reasons:
- - it changes the rules of the election while the election is ongoing;
- - the motion presented aims at putting to vote a subject that has been 
discussed for not even 24 hours.

As I noted above, even if I accepted this motion, and the GA approved this 
motion, this would only mean to be a recommandation to the NC, who could 
still be free to accept it or to reject it.
In the meantime, rest assured that I will pass the official results of the 
GA election process to the NC without application of the "rule of 10". We 
will elect the candidate(s) according to our rules, and let's the NC take 
its decision according to its rules.

Regards
Roberto

>From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
>To: "\"Roberto Gaetano\"" <[email-masked]>,        "Joop Teernstra" 
><[email-masked]>
>CC: <[email-masked]>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [ga] Request to the GA Chair for a Ballot
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:13:45 -0500
>
>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.
>
>--Joop
>________________________________________________________
>
>Roberto and all remaining members,
>
>Whereas it is not a requirement of the GA that members of the voting roster
>must also subscribe to the GA mailing list.
>Whereas the standard procedure for determining the will of all those
>affected by election procedure is by Ballot of the Voting Roster prepared 
>by
>the DNSO Secretariat.
>Whereas All candidates for GA Chair and Alternate Chair who have accepted
>the nomination, and had at least two endorsements from members of the 
>voting
>roster of the General Assembly, are considered candidates, under rules
>approved by Ballot of the GA for the 2001 election.
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
>Whereas  the DNSO Chair and Alternate Chair Election Rules posted to the
>DNSO website on March 16th give a clear description of  the process used to
>select the nominee in accordance with the 2001 rules communicated to the 
>GA.
>. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
>Whereas at its 1999 meeting in LA the NC indicated that it would be guided
>by the GA in appointing a new GA Chair.
>Whereas a DECISION of NC taken in February 2001 to invite the GA to manage
>an election process to select a nominee for appointment by the NC to the
>position of Chair of the GA was unanimously approved by council members.
>Whereas on March 29, immediately prior to closure of the endorsement period
>of the 2001 election, the GA Alternate Chair announced to the GA ML that
>under NC rules adopted for the 1999 Election that none of the candidates
>have enough endorsements to be considered by the Names Council according to
>the rules of the NC selection, which rules increase the number of
>endorsements required by 8 (eight) and require the names of all candidates
>with 10 (ten) or more endorsements to be put forward for the NC to make the
>final selection for GA Chair and Alternate Chair, these being in opposition
>to 2001 rules.  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01473.html
>
>IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the General Assembly ( in their capacity as
>managers of the 2001 election process to select a nominee for appointment 
>by
>the NC to the positions of Chair and Alternate Chair of the GA) to dismiss
>the Rules applied to the previous election in 1999.
>__________________________________________
>The above Resolution to be put to the voting roster by Ballot prepared by
>DNSO Secretariat, to run in tandem with the election process currently
>underway.
>
>BALLOT QUESTIONS
>
>1. The 1999 election rules should be dismissed by the NC
>2. The 1999 election rules should be adopted by the NC
>3. Abstain
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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 18:12:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: TLDA (Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, at 16:30 [=GMT+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.

It seems you know what the TLDA is going to do before anyone else,
including the bootstrap. Are new attempts to bottom-up consensus etc.
not welcome here?

Lovely. 

"Us"?

- -- 
[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 11:16:36 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Danny Younger wrote:-
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?

No. We can expect the same standards for all, so this is the problem:-

Patrick Corliss disclosed his background Information in his Acceptance of
Nomination for GA Chair, posted to the DNSO Secretariat on March 24.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.html.
Significantly, this was two days after he became a Director of the Top Level
Domain Association, formed March 22, but he failed to disclose that fact.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01534.html

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 18:24:48 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternatechair

Eric,

>
>Now from this post forward we have the premature declaration of who was
>winning, the ridiculous change of rules which were not mentioned in the
>first place but then brought into play by you and no one else and then
>your use of the word mockery as far as who would be the GA Chair.

There is a difference between "changing the rules" and "reminding of the 
existence of rules".
The so-called "rule of 10" existed well before Harald mentioned it, and the 
risk of somebody in the NC formally appealing to it to jeopardize the 
results was real (even if it was low, methinks).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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 08:32:42 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:25 AM

> On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed 
> (www.tlda.org).

> 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.

You must be unaware of the history between the ORSC and the ICANN. After the
ICANN was endorsed, by the USG/DOC, there came a furious round of proposals
and counter-proposals, for the DNSO, by ORSC, BWG, and CORE. After Berlin,
'99', it quickly became apparent that the process was stacked, and the ORSC
refused to lend the ICANN its legitimacy. Some of us disagreed and continued
our involvement, knowing that everything was pre-arranged but hoping to make
some sort of difference. But, most of the ORSC decided to play
independently.

> 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?

The ORSC and the TLDA are not the ICANN. It is composed of many that were
systematically disenfranchised by activities of the ICANN and the DNSO.
Along with openness and transparency was also to have been inclusiveness.
ICANN/DNSO have been nothing short of exclusive wrt the ORSC and other root
zone publishers. The most vocal proponents of this exclusivity were D'Crock
and Crispin. Much of their writtings are of "elitist" bent.

> 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.

Isn't this position promoting the exclusivity of the ICANN/DNSO much
further? The TLDA only is possible because the ICANN forced it into being.
Most would readily be part of ICANN were they given an equal voice and a
place to be heard.

> 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.

They are only disparate because the ICANN has forced the disparity. ORSC was
once a very vocal supporter of the [IFWP] process and was the first to call
for openness and transparancy. The third leg of that stool is inclusiveness.
You are making an argument for exclusiveness and fostering the continuance
of the fragmentation and polarization that is caused directly by the ICANN
itself.

The ICANN was supposed to be an inclusive alliance of all internet
stakeholders. Instead, it has become a tightly knit club of an elite few.
- --
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 18:35:06 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contr act)

> > the governing members of the ITU are NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS - a
> > lot of those
> > think that they don't need contracts to have power.
>
>That depends entirely on where you are geo-politically located, relevent to
>that National Government.

Not to "that" National Government, but to "those" National Government*s*. 
The whole point in signing international treaties is to ensure common 
approach within the scope of the treaty for all signatory countries.
And this is exactly the point that makes a UN treaty organization 
interesting for policies that have to be applied uniformly worldwide, and 
not subject to the specific legislation of a single country.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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 11:45:00 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] I agree with everything Roberto (and Harald) said

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

     [W]here is the problem?...

     ...the number of bytes needed to flow in the Net
     to provide the missing endorsement to the candidates that still did
     not pass
     the 10 cap is substantially lower than the number of bytes flowing in
     this
     argumentation.

I am going to endorse all the candidates and suggest that others wishing to moot
this issue do so as well.

- --
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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:52:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION - NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT
THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF TLDA, auDA, ICANN OR ANY OTHER BODY]

On Friday, March 30, 2001 11:24 PM (AEST)
Danny Younger <[email-masked]> 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.

It is very interesting that you have raised this issue within such a short time
(mere hours) after I gained the 10 endorsements required in the election.  My
views are quite well known to you and many on this list.  In fact, you and I
spent several hours discussing them in Melbourne before you asked me to join you
in the campaign.  I advised you at that time of the proposed TLD Association.

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.

It is my understanding that the TLDA aims to encompass all "top level domains"
whether these are included in the ICANN system or otherwise.  In other words
membership will be open to ccTLDs, the new gTLDs, chartered TLDs, and "inclusive
root" TLDs.  In fact, I hope any TLD will be welcome to join the association.

In making that statement, I should make it clear that the TLDA has only just
been formed.  It has not yet developed its policies or indeed its bylaws.  At
present there are no members, from the alternative community or anywhere else.

> 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?

On Sunday, March 18, 2001 8:57 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> > The issue of alternater roots is clearly on the border line, and
> > historically the discussion has taken place also in this forum because the
> > matter is of true interest, even if from a strict point of view is not
> > related to ICANN.

Nevertheless, I have raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest issue
with quite a few people and some of what I say here is taken from private
correpondence and cited without attribution.  I will provide details if granted
permission.

In all cases, the informed view was that the alternative TLDs are "outside
ICANN's area of control".  This means that they are outside the scope of ICANN's
supporting organizations' (including the GA of the DNSO) "area of control".

As I understand it, the new internationalized domain name systems are running on
so-called "alternate" roots and I have asked members of the ICANN Board, and
other noted persons, whether ICANN has any official policy on alternate roots.

From this research it is clear that ICANN has no specific policy on altenate
roots other than consensus with the IAB statement on a single set of roots.
This statement is not really a policy against alternate roots but a statement
that they are not really DNS roots and that there can only be one "true" root.

I have also been informed that the by-laws of ICANN talk about 'the root server
system' and that this implicitly specifies a set of roots.  As you may know
ICANN made non-compliance with alt roots a condition of bidding for new gTLDs.
This was not based on any policy other than the IAB statement noted above.

However, you should understand that if ICANN had such a policy it would an
arguable restraint on competition and trade.  It would also possibly be illegal.

I have also corresponded with Karl Auerbach on many issues relating to
alternative roots following my posting of his "Multple Roots" article, or a
reference to it, on, I believe, two lists including NANOG.  I concur with this
point of view and would promote it onlist in any relevant postings.

http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots

I am sure that Karl's views are well enough known as a result of this work that
he would not mind me quoting one sentence  He said "There are people who adhere
to the IAB statement and there are people, such as myself, who do not".

> 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.

I appreciate your kind words and understand your motivations.  In fact, I have
the utmost respect for your hard work and regret that the election rules
required us to compete "head-to-head" rather than on a joint platform with you
as Chair.

However, I did suggest there was at least a possibility that I might achieve a
better result and this might cause you hurt and disappointment.  I truly
considered conceding to you in order to avoid such a scenario.  I also raised,
onlist, the possibility of  endorsing rival candidates and reminded you to
endorse yourself.

On Friday, March 30, 2001 4:04 PM (AEST), I wrote:
> > It seems to me that if there is some arbitrary rule that we should have 10
> > endorsements, all candidates should follow Eric's lead and endorse all other
> > candidates.

I am concerned that Danny has raised this issue and this strengthens my support
of Joanna Lane's resolution that the GA hold a proper election rather than just
handing over the decision making to the Names Council.  However, I do not feel
it is appropriate to withdraw and throw my weight behind another candidate.

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.

> 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.

My view is that there is no conflict of interest.  The reasoning is explained
very well by Leah Gallegos in her response to your posting.  I fully concur with
her views as stated in several postings.

There is also a timing difference which I will discuss later in my response.

> 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.

I deliberately drew everybody's attention to my views during the election itself
when given the opportunity.  I made my views loud and clear in a recent posting,
on Friday, March 30, 2001 3:46 PM (AEST), in which I said:

Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN as a Governing Body
> That is not the case externally as ICANN has chosen to ignore competing root
> systems as being outside of its sphere of influence or control.  Other roots,
> such as ORSC and New.Net are operating independently to some extent outside of
> ICANN.
>
> Unless and until, ICANN makes a concerted effort to join with those
> independent roots in a co-operative arrangement, they are following the
> competitive model.  It is as if they are somehow not part of a shared
> internet.  It doesn't make sense to me.

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.  I see the true position as akin to the official medical authorities
working with acupuncturists and those advocating natural childbirth or similar
alternative therapies.

I believe that both should work together to improve the health of the community.

On Saturday, March 31, 2001 2:16 AM (AEST),
Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> wrote;
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

> Significantly, this was two days after he became a Director of the Top Level
> Domain Association, formed March 22, but he failed to disclose that fact.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01534.html

Since writing the above Joanna's post has come to my attention.  I would add
that the day after my acceptance, on 25 March, I published a statement on the
TLDA website at http://www.tlda.org/official/corliss_conflict.html.  This says:

<quote>
I, Patrick Corliss, make the following declaration:

(1) Member of auDA, director of auDA, member DNSO GA, member ICANN "at
large", nominee for Chair of DNSO GA, professional memberships.

(2) Either personally or as the proprietor of a company (Quad Quality Addressing
Pty Ltd) I hold domain names and top-level domains. I also provide reseller and
consultancy services.

I expect that I may publish news or articles about the DNS.

It is my honest professional opinion that these activities are not in conflict
with the expected aims and objectives of the TLDA but are, in fact, closely
aligned with them. I would be happy to provide any further clarification if
needed.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
<end quote>

On 27 March, I also made a disclosure to the auDA Board to a similar effect.  It
was clear to me, at the time, that there was no conflict of interest and I then
sought informed advice over the next couple of days (which I have referenced
above).  In fact, I now intend to provide a copy of this reply to both bodies.

That advice, all of which was received on 29 March (almost the last day of the
election period) was quite clear.  There is no conflict of interest.  In the
circumstances it was not appropriate to make such a declaration.

I note that Danny Younger has declared that he does "work" for Register.com, and
I'd ask whether it would be his intention to "recuse" from any and all registrar
matters that may come before the GA.  If so, this would be a singularly
ineffective representation.

Finally, I would say that ICANN, Chairman, Vint Cert, has stated that ICANN has
no authority over the alt. roots or New.net.  That being said, the TLDA was
formed to complement ICANN and not to work against its US Government  mission.

My other interests have been declared to be *outside* of ICANN's authority.  My
aim is to bring them together.  If I succeed I will then declare a "conflict of
interest".  And I'll be happy to do so !!

> Best regards,
> Danny Younger

Very sincerely
Patrick Corliss

> --
> 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 12:53:19 -0500
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Disclosure of Patrick's role in the TLDA would not be mandated for an ICANN board member unless there is a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest usually means that the subject has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the activities that s/he presides over or otherwise participates in.

Pretend I'm stupid. Tell me how there is a conflict of interest here. Please also tell me why we insist that the Chair of the GA should have been born yesterday, with no baggage that might incline the Chair one way or the other.

Let me clarify something: I'm not a supporter of Patrick. I disagree with his view of the relationship between the constituencies and the GA. But I do not believe the process is well-served by trying to demonize Patrick.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

>>> "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]> 03/30/01 11:16AM >>>
Danny Younger wrote:-
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?

No. We can expect the same standards for all, so this is the problem:-

Patrick Corliss disclosed his background Information in his Acceptance of
Nomination for GA Chair, posted to the DNSO Secretariat on March 24.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01/msg00016.html.
Significantly, this was two days after he became a Director of the Top Level
Domain Association, formed March 22, but he failed to disclose that fact.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01534.html 

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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 20:10:54 +0200
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] And I agree with Eric [Was: I agree with everything Roberto (and Harald) said]

Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
>I am going to endorse all the candidates and suggest that others wishing to 
>moot
>this issue do so as well.
>

One thing I would like to add, joining Eric in inviting people to endorse 
the candidates that did not pass yet the cap.
The rule was intended initially to avoid crowding the list intended to be 
passed to the NC with a large number of irrelevant (or even non-existing, 
for who remembers "the way we were" in 1999) candidates.
The purpose was to pass to NC a reasonably-sized list.

With only four candidates for two seats (Chair+AltChair), this is not at all 
a worry.

I see the good intention in proposing a debate about the form of the 
elections, and the potentially dangerous misunderstandings, but I believe 
that the best solution for the Internet Community is to give all four 
candidates the possibility to run.
Let's get out from the formalities, into the debate about the ideas these 
four will bring for the real voting phase, that will begin in few hours.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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 12:14:42 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Endorsements

3a. Full name of the endorser: Eric Weisberg
3b. E-mail address of the endorser: [email-masked]
3c. Full name of the accepted nominee you wish to endorse: 
Eric Hugh Dierker, Danny Younger, Patrick Corliss and Jonathan Weinberg

I believe that each of these candidates should be on the ballot
presented to the 
General Assembly for Chair, and if elected, he should be allowed to
serve.

If, for any reason, group endorsements are deemed invalid, please apply
this endorsement to Eric Hugh Dierker, (as he is the only candidate
lacking 10 endorsements at this time and I intend this writing to
fulfill that specific requirement, if it exists).
- --
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 10:30:37 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST

For the purposes of my argument, IANA :== CORE.

Yes, I know they were supposed to "not be connected". But, this is also an
old argument that neither of us will win. In my mind, IAHC/PAB/CORE was the
IANA proposal and by all superficial evidence, is the current ICANN, behind
the scenes.

In my mind, and the minds of many, CORE has no plausible deniability.
IAHC/PAB/CORE have all been acting in concert, as one org. If it quacks like
a duck and swims like a duck ...

It is significant that IAHC brought in this IP interest mess, to the DNS,
and we now have WIPO involvement, laid at the feet of a very few
IAHC/PAB/CORE members. Members that were involved in all three orgs.

It is the ex-chair of the IAHC and the PAB chair (D'Crock and Crispin) that
were the most staunch proponents for an exclusive-elite model. Both had
involvement in CORE, to my knowlege. In fact, IAHC was an exclusive club and
this is what prompted the hew and cry for openness, transparency, and
inclusiveness, a call that has continuously been ignored.

Crispin, has repeatedly, with pungent correctness, pointed out that the
ICANN is a privately-held corporation that is NOT democratic and is NOT a
governance organization. The flip-side of that argument is that ICANN is an
exclusive club that is only open to a select few, the periphery being not
much more than window-dressing, to keep the mob occupied. The behavior of
the past few years seems to give credence to that argument.

D'Crock has continually made reference that ICANN is only to be occupied
with the USG root zone and that others are irrelevent. Ken, I can't honestly
read that as anything other than an elitist statement. It is rife with
exclusivity.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 7:42 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> 
> 
> Roland...
> 
> i am confused as to your comments below re: CORE
> CORE never made any proposal of the nature you are referring to
> in your response ...
> 
> we supported the IANA proposal for NEWCO all along
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'babybows.com'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] CONFLICT OF INTEREST
> 
> 
> > > From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 5:25 AM
> >
> > > On March 22, the Top Level Domain Association was formed
> > > (www.tlda.org).
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > You must be unaware of the history between the ORSC and the 
> ICANN. After
> the
> > ICANN was endorsed, by the USG/DOC, there came a furious round of
> proposals
> > and counter-proposals, for the DNSO, by ORSC, BWG, and 
> CORE. After Berlin,
> > '99', it quickly became apparent that the process was 
> stacked, and the
> ORSC
> > refused to lend the ICANN its legitimacy. Some of us disagreed and
> continued
> > our involvement, knowing that everything was pre-arranged 
> but hoping to
> make
> > some sort of difference. But, most of the ORSC decided to play
> > independently.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > The ORSC and the TLDA are not the ICANN. It is composed of 
> many that were
> > systematically disenfranchised by activities of the ICANN 
> and the DNSO.
> > Along with openness and transparency was also to have been 
> inclusiveness.
> > ICANN/DNSO have been nothing short of exclusive wrt the 
> ORSC and other
> root
> > zone publishers. The most vocal proponents of this exclusivity were
> D'Crock
> > and Crispin. Much of their writtings are of "elitist" bent.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Isn't this position promoting the exclusivity of the ICANN/DNSO much
> > further? The TLDA only is possible because the ICANN forced 
> it into being.
> > Most would readily be part of ICANN were they given an 
> equal voice and a
> > place to be heard.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > They are only disparate because the ICANN has forced the 
> disparity. ORSC
> was
> > once a very vocal supporter of the [IFWP] process and was 
> the first to
> call
> > for openness and transparancy. The third leg of that stool is
> inclusiveness.
> > You are making an argument for exclusiveness and fostering 
> the continuance
> > of the fragmentation and polarization that is caused 
> directly by the ICANN
> > itself.
> >
> > The ICANN was supposed to be an inclusive alliance of all internet
> > stakeholders. Instead, it has become a tightly knit club of 
> an elite few.
> > --
> > 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 #323
************************