Jay and all,
Thank you for submitting this impression Jay. It is much appreciated
by many I am sure.
As to your conclusion on these impressions. In what manner will
a "Consensus" be determined? Without a viable method on measuring
that there is "Consensus" for any draft, there cannot be a consensus
claimed.
Jay Fenello wrote:
> [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.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
