Hi Stef,
I agree that ORSC should continue its efforts
at drafting a consensus document.
I also agree that the results of tomorrow's
conference call (CC) should be made available
for incorporation into the ongoing ORSC draft
editing process. After all, it is not outside
the realm of possibility that some good ideas
will be generated tomorrow.
For my part, I will present the ORSC position
as best as I understand it. I also plan on
using the Internet to include members of ORSC
in the process.
I plan on sending some brief questions out
to the ORSC policy list during the CC. I will
do my best to read all of the responses. If I
get overwhelmed, I will resort to only reading
subject headers. Those who reply should update
their subject headers accordingly.
CC starts tomorrow at 12:00 noon EST.
Until then . . .
Jay.
P.S. I have asked that the CC be transcribed,
but this has not yet been confirmed.
At 1/25/99, 11:37 PM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> As I stated emphatically and clearly in the 22 January
> DNSO meeting when the INTA and DNSO.ORG participants
> argued for setting up a limited particiaption telecon
> to resolve the outstanding issues, and that other
> drafting efforts should be suspended in favor of the
> results of the telecon:
>
>ORSC has launched an open public DNSO draft editing process that
>accepts input from anyone that wishes to contribute. This process is
>able to absorb and incorporate input much faster than any proposed
>telecon process might ever accomplish, and do it in public so that
>when it is done, everyone that is interested will know it is done and
>will know from the public record how the draft became what it became.
>
>In short, the ORSC position is bery simple. It is critical that this
>work be done "on the net" in order to rapidly find consensus. So,
>ORSC will continue our public draft editing procees, and the telecon
>can proceed however it wishes, and can report the telecon results for
>incorporation into the ongoing ORSC draft editing process, or keep it
>to themselves for separate submission to ICANN.
>
>To stop the ORSC process and wait for the telecon results, with a 10
>day deadline facing us, is just plain silly. It does not matter
>whether someone is trying to hyjack the process with a closed process
>proposal or not, since they can do their thing and the rest of us can
>do ours on the net, and we will see who has the best consensus meld in
>the end.
>
>Further, the ICANN proposed 5 February deadline no longer holds any
>power here, as ORSC can and will continue its editing efforts after
>that deadline to see if we can further improve the DNSO draft while
>ICANN proceeds to select one from a set of frozen drafts.
>
>If ICANN wants to ignore a better draft application just because it
>did not make their arbitrary deadline is their choice to make, and
>they will have to live with the consequences of any such decison.
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>From your message Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:38:51 -0500:
>}
>}[NOTE ==> Please excuse the cross-postings. The IFWP
>}list is down once again, and this is one way to ensure
>}wide distribution.]
>}
>}Hello everyone,
>}
>}What follows is my personal interpretation of the events
>}surrounding the Washington DNSO meetings that occurred on
>}January 21st and 22nd.
>}
>}History
>}
>}In response to the ICANN formation process, a self
>}forming group came together and formed the DNSO.org
>}process. They had two open meetings, one in Barcelona,
>}Spain, and one in Monterey, Mexico.
>}
>}A rough consensus document was drafted after each of
>}these meetings, and a substantial number of the
>}registries, ISPs, etc. were contributing to the process.
>}
>}After Monterey, the trademark/business (TB) community
>}decided to put forward their own draft. In an effort to
>}consolidate these drafts into a single draft, a handful
>}of the DNSO.org leaders started private negotiations with
>}a few of the TB interests.
>}
>}While the resulting "Merged" draft appeased the TB
>}interests, many of the others who participated in the
>}open DNSO.org process felt alienated. That's when Dr.
>}Lisse, Michael Sondow, and others started to vehemently
>}complain about how the DNSO.org process had been
>}hijacked.
>}
>}To build consensus around the "Merged" draft, the TB
>}interests joined with the DNSO.org leaders to plan a
>}closed DNSO meeting on January 21st, and an open DNSO
>}meeting on January 22nd. It was hoped that these
>}meetings would lead to a single consensus document.
>}
>}But as these meetings approached, some who were
>}disenfranchised by the "Merged" draft process put forward
>}their own documents. By the time of the meeting, there
>}were five different drafts on the table.
>}
>}
>}The Outcome
>}
>}Under the direction of a professional mediator, a
>}representative from each of the five drafts struggled to
>}find areas of agreement, as well as areas where there was
>}no agreement.
>}
>}My impression of this process was that there are only
>}a few, major philosophical differences that must be
>}resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
>}down, or bottom up decision making process. The other
>}is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and
>}inclusive, or structured and limited.
>}
>}The way I see this shaping up, we have the TB interests
>}supporting a DNSO that features top down decision making
>}and a structured, limited membership. We have a majority
>}of the ccTLD and gTLD registries supporting the opposite.
>}
>}What each side must come to realize is that they each
>}have a veto in this process. If the TB interests don't
>}agree, then we don't have an agreement. If the
>}registries don't agree, then we don't have an agreement.
>}
>}In other words, unless both sides are willing to
>}compromise, we won't have an agreement :-(
>}
>}The Key to Compromise
>}
>}To get past the divide that separates these two
>}stakeholder groups, we must get past the goals that they
>}are pursuing, and explore the rationale for their
>}respective positions.
>}
>}For example, the Registries won't support a top down
>}decision making process because they are the ones who
>}will be impacted by these decisions. They also know that
>}there is no way that ICANN can force them to do anything,
>}unless they voluntarily agree to give ICANN that power.
>}
>}The TB interests, on the other hand, really need a fast
>}and simple way to establish some rules for the Internet.
>}They can either build a system of contracts as suggested
>}in the White Paper, or they can spend the next 100 years,
>}and millions of dollars trying to get legislation and/or
>}treaties passed in every country plugged into the
>}Internet.
>}
>}My point is that both of these stakeholders have
>}legitimate concerns. It is these concerns that need to
>}be accommodated in a compromise solution. Arguing about
>}details without addressing these big picture items is a
>}waste of everyone's time, and will not get us any closer
>}to a single consensus draft.
>}
>}Speaking of which, we only have until February 5th to put
>}forward a DNSO proposal. If there is only one consensus
>}draft, then it will likely be approved at the ICANN BoD
>}meeting on March 3rd. If not, then all bets are off.
>}
>}
>}Respectfully,
>}
>}Jay Fenello
>}President, Iperdome, Inc.
>}404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>}
>}
>}P.S. This discussion will be continued on the ORSC
>}list. Please join us if you'd like to participate.
>}See http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/ for more info.
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
