Blokzijl (Re: COI (was Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] nomcom))

[t byfield]

apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Mon 06/24/02 at 06:15 PM -0500):

> while this is working, do you have any specific proposals that actually
> relate to domain name policy? these are good days to address them...

no, i don't. along with many others, i have a long-standing set of 
questions about blokzijl's potential conflict of interest -- which,
i will add, has *compounded* since these concerns were first aired
(cf. his membership on the board of Organic Names).

alejandro, i've seen with my own eyes how the ICANN board and blok-
zijl in particular handled his recusal at MDR2K: dyson wasn't aware
that he had recused himself, and he not only remained on the dais
but clearly indicated his preferences during a discussion. if this
is how he handles recusal, i'd hate to see how he'd handle a situ-
ation in which he *should have* recused himself -- which, given his
various involvements in .org discussions and applications, is what
he should have done already.

please stop trying to sidestep the question with solicitous excuses
about repopulating the COI committee and red herrings. i'm a member
of this constuency, and along with several other members have ex-
pressed serious concern about this possible COI. you immediately 
leapt into the initial discussion with a carte blanche defense of 
blokzijl, but failed to answer my question about whether you were 
speaking as an NCDNHCer or as a boardmember. since then, you have 
said that the COI committee was being restocked. it's been stack^W
i mean *stocked* now -- so what are you doing to do? and when?

cheers,
t

> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, t byfield wrote:
> 
> > dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Sun 06/23/02 at 11:06 AM -0700):
> >
> > > >I think the community is owed a statement about the effect of the ISOC
> > > >application.  Who will be recused and how much from what?
> > >
> > > Rather than placing a broad, unspecified burden on a broad, unspecified
> > > group of people, you should consider your own obligation to provide
> > > specific questions, about specific issues, for specific people.
> >
> > narrow, specific burden: directly and proactively take up the possible
> > issue of blokzijl's conflict(s).
> >
> > narrow, specific group: ICANN's COI committee.
> >
> > > That way, there is a chance of getting meaningful dialogue, rather than
> > > simply creating yet another opportunity for making broad, unspecified
> > > attacks.
> >
> > quit whingeing.
> >
> > cheers,
> > t
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss