Jay,
You are implying that the key to the successful future lies in
compromise, and it does not. In the case of the DNSO/ICANN, one can define
a successful future in the negative, as in "the absence of a catastrophy"
(or in the positive, maintaining stability), but There IS No Compromise
position between opposing poles as you describe them. You, in particular,
having gone through the process as I and others have, should have learned
that by now. My suggestion is that the use of the word *compromise* should
be replaced by the word "Detente".
One can view such a Detente as being a state of check-mate between
opposite points of view (+) and a (-), where they both agree to recognize
each side's right to exist. One side represents the freedom to create at
the edges and make decisions for oneself (+), the other represents the
absence of that freedom (-) to choose. They are philosophical polar
opposites, both of which are allowed *by Nature* to exist within the system
we called "our world" or "the universe". Examples of such opposites which
exist abound for all to enjoy: Electrons and Protons (matter) Heat and
cold (weather) Male and Female (biological/social) UV light and IR light
(physics), dictatorships and democracies (politics)...to name a few. The
only commonality that they ALL have is that they all exist within dynamic
systems.
As the science of network systems (above) and history show us, when
two opposing positions (forces) achieve a standoff, a successful outcome
will only occur when one side is allowed to exercise its inclusiveness and
welcome the opposition to join the other. In the pursuit of peace,
stability, and contentment, for all participants, this will be the solution
to the standoff.
There is only one position that allows for *all* participants to
have a seat at the table, and that position is the one which allows for
participation from individual entrepreneurship and self-interest, as well
as the more structured position. There is only one inclusive, unified
system for any given system.
The "concerns" of the stakeholders can and will all be addressed by
the marketplace (or the network system called Internet in this narrow
case), if they are allowed to co-exist. If variety and choice are not
allowed to flourish, then the "compromise" which is being sought to be
achieved below will result in a temporarily "successful" ICANN/DNSO, but a
destabilized future because it will fail.
When the politicians have long since vanished, people quit chasing
the endless meeting trail, they will recognize the irony that the
representatives of the U.S. government were responsible for ushering out a
system founded upon protections and rights, and ushering in a system which
was greased to "compromised" them away, with the void filled by special
interests.
The legality of the actions will be determined later, but it is
time to minimize the damage by examining individual cases which affect
supply and demand (economics), which affect global choice (politics), which
affect the rights of people to use language (linguistics), and the ancient
concept of the "control" of language by forces which attempt to exploit
human energy, and stifle human potential.
It's all about supply and demand. The demand is high, because the
vocabularies of people are large. The supply is low. As long as ICANN
(and Esther and Mike, and the others) keep the supply controlled, their
not-so-hidden constituency is happy, at the expense of the consumers who
have limited choice, limited competition, and artificially high prices.
The ICANN/DNSO process is backwards. Much of the talk at the
meetings, we have seen, is about funding, about budgets, about control. It
should be focused on the market, the customers, expanding choice. This is
the lesson which CommerceNet's 1994 failure taught everyone in the position
to watch true commercial Internet flourish.
Competitive markets cannot be sustainably managed, or controlled.
They will do what all of the economies which have been managed or
controlled have ever done in the history of the world...crumble.
The ICANN/DNSO process so far is a fine teacher that the arrogance
of the human ego, its collective lust-for-power, our collective short
sightedness, will once again lead us collectively down a Dead End Street.
The only answer that will be sustainable and work is to increase
the supply of name inventory and allow for a system which allows names to
be exchanged across networks of networks, just as all language (in the form
of Voice-Traffic) has been allowed to be exchanged across the globe in the
past, and is now being "routed around" by the openness of IP networks.
Solve the supply problem, and this ICANN/DNSO logjam/bottleneck
gets stabilized for the long term.
Steve Page
Internet.A-.Z Name Registry
U.S. Data Highway Corp.
T: 925-454-0448
(c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
Jay summarized:
>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
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
