[ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org

[jefsey]

Interesting.

On 03:22 20/05/02, Kent Crispin said:
>Here are all of Dr Blokzijl's comments during that discussion:
>I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE BOARD AND STAFF UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT
>THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM CREATING A NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.

Otherwise we might be here for another 10 years :-)

>SO WE DON'T HAVE MUCH FREEDOM.

glad to hear they think they have some from tim to time...

>WHOEVER IS GOING TO RUN DOT ORG IN THE NEAR FUTURE INHERITS AN EXISTING
>USER BASE OF ABOUT 3 MILLION PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS, SOME OF THEM
>INDIVIDUAL PERSONS, SOME OF THEM LARGE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE REALLY
>DEPENDENT UPON THE PROPER OPERATION OF DOT ORG.  JUST TO NAME ONE, THE
>INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS TODAY COULD NOT DO ITS WORK WITHOUT THE REGISTRY
>DOT ORG.

1. also inherit from pre-renewals over up to 10 years, but no one wants to 
talk about the money which goes with them.
2. ICANN is not afraid of wanting to take over the entire root system 
(hiring a few people to get familiar with such operations, see 2003 
budget). What a legal firm can do, why a non-profit could not do it?

>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: ICANN, MAYBE.
>THERE IS ALWAYS ICANN.NL.
>WHICH IS RESERVED FOR ICANN, BY THE WAY.

ICANN is puting themselves as a candidate? with the support of Neustar to 
foster competition among "Plan B"ers?

>SO THERE ARE NOT MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE A DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE
>IN RUNNING A REGISTRY WITH 3 MILLION REGISTERED NAMES.

The killing point... may be DENIC is a good candidate. It is a non-profit.

>A REGISTRY WHICH HAS ABOUT 10, 12 SERVERS SCATTERED AROUND THE WORLD ON
>CRUCIAL SPOTS OF THE INTERNET.
>THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN RUNNING A COUNTRY CODE TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN,
>FOR INSTANCE.

Glad to know that. Is this more than running ".museum"?
Why so long a negotiation for .museum?

>ROBERT BLOKZIJL: A WORD FROM THE PAST.
>DOT ORG WAS CREATED AT THE SAME TIME AS DOT COM.

It shows that he never read the RFC 920 and does not know anything about 
the way TLDs are created and supported...

>AND WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THE FACT THAT IN AN INTERNET SPACE THAT
>WAS INCREDIBLY MORE SIMPLE TEN YEARS AGO THAN IT IS TODAY, EVEN THEN IT
>WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DRAW A CLEAR LINE.

Glad to learn that a BoD Member confuses 1984 and 1992...
It means that nothing really changes.

>SO LESS RULES ARE BETTER THAN MORE RULES, I WOULD SAY.

For saying that, he should be sanctified!

>That is the absolute totality of Dr Blokzijl's contribution to the
>discussion on this issue.  I've read the above comments several time,
>and I really can't find any indication whatsoever of Dr Blokzijl in an
>advocacy position for for-profit entities taking over .org.  All he does
>is make the fairly commonplace observation that .org is a relatively
>large registry, and it cannot be run from a kitchen table.

I thank you for comparing a non-profit to a kitchen table. Most of the 
ccTLDs will be very happy!
But you yourself said it was very simple compared to the work to make 
believe you are authoritative. The real task is not to redelegate .org but 
for the ICANN to make believe it has the right to do it. Otherwise the 
whole system falls apart.

What Milton may say or not is of no real interest. The point is that Mr. 
Blokzijl did not step down and that this obvious COI case does not rise any 
interest by the BoD and by the COI committee. What may lead to think, as 
Norbert hinted it, that this is common practice.
This is the concern.
Mani pulite.
jfc

-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02