Oh Dear Sala, Thank you so much for your very kind note. It has been so long since we last spoke. I did indeed make a SoI declaration of part time employment by dotgay LLC.. dotgay LLC is the Community applicant for .gay. Would that the RG had been as solicitous of defending our Gay Community as it was of defending the so called health community - we actually have many community members who sent in comments indicating how harmful the standard applications for .gay and .lgbt were to the Gay Community. I guess when it comes to taking up the cause of communities attacked by Standard Applications, the Gay community was not quite good enough for the RG. Or maybe we did not lobby the RG. I know I stayed away from the RG completely so as not to possibly affect its decisions in behalf of the dotgay Community. Perhaps you can understand why I find the reasoning behind this community objection so baffling and hard to comprehend. As for Affilias. If anything as a standard applicant for .lgbt (not ,gay but they are confusingly similar, aren't they?) they are a competitor of my employer. If I were to act on my part time employer's interest, I should be convincing the ALAC to nail them and file the Objection. Of course they were not put in the same contention set as .gay, so I am not sure there is any relation at all at this point between .gay and .lgbt. But what I was trying to do, is show that ALAC has 2 problems with this Objection. Not because I love my competitor and wish to do undo them as I would have them do unto dotgay, but because I think it is the right thing to do. Had the RG suggested a limited interest objection on the basis of danger to the health consumer, who knows, you might have had a real winner of an argument to make. Instead, in my view, you have an industry masquerading as a community pushing the ALAC beyond its proper scope. I beleive in the At-Large. I am a director at an ALS. I put in a lot of time and effort on At-Large issues. I want to see At-Large grow and become a genuine representative of the global user's interest. But in this case, I find these ALAC objections improper and risky. So I dared to speak out. Also as the chair of the group that created the Objection procedure, I felt it was my duty to call out the unresolved scope issue which I had tried to discuss twice with ALAC to no avail. But I thank you for the ad hominem attack against my arguments. In fact not just against arguments but against presentation of the fact of dialogues I had with ALAC over the scope of ALAC Objections. Do you really dispute the fact of the quote because you think that Afilias might be involved with .gay (wrongly) and I am involved with .gay and that somehow i am presenting facts because i am part of some evil gay cabal? In any case, I always find ad-hominem attacks so comforting and reassuring. So, with all due respect, I thank you kindly for the effort you took to reassure me that I had a point. Wishing you all the best with the kindest regards, avri On 8 Mar 2013, at 21:35, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Dear Avri,
I recall at some point that you had made a declaration of conflict of interest on gTLD matters and had advised the ALAC that you were contracted to help .gay
I note that AFILIAS is one of the applicants of .Health
Please advise whether AFILIAS is also the applicant of .gay
Thank you.
Kind Regards, Sala