Antony,
You wrote:
> Roberto,
>
> I find myself agreeing with Jay Fenello less and less these days, but his
> point that the DNSO as it functions now is very different from what the
> Paris Draft envisioned is on target. Why he is an opponent "tout court"
> of
> ICANN is a different question upon which I don't wish to speculate. I
> personally don't reject ICANN because the alternative is the same thing
> two
> years from now. Better to fix it now than go through this hell all over
> again.
>
This is not a minor point, but is the *real* key of the issue.
I am definitively unhappy the way things are going with the DNSO,
nevertheless, there's no way I will be willing to throw everything out and
start anew.
So, let's concentrate on what needs to be fixed.
> Still, the functioning of the DNSO is now radically different than what
> the
> Paris Draft envisioned. It is also turning out to be quite a bit
> different
> from what the ICANN Bylaws require it to be. Consider these areas:
>
> 1. Constituencies under the current rules can be formed out of public
> view.
<details snipped>
This is not a question of Paris Draft vs. other drafts.
The process of forming constituencies has to be open and transparent <full
stop>.
Formal adoption of the Paris Draft would not have helped.
> 2. Currently, there is no way for new constituencies to form, short of
> begging the ICANN Board.
<details snipped>
Here we agree, and I already stated this.
The problem is building enough momentum around the creation of a new
constituency, whether we have a formal 5% or not. In fact, in Berlin the
question of the Individual Domain Name Holders constituency has not had
clear support. From my point of view, as a supporter of the proposal, this
is infortunate, but nevertheless it is the reality.
Either there will be enough support on this proposal, or it is not going to
happen, independently of which is the *formal* draft that had been chosen
for the DNSO.
> 3. The main arena of work in Paris Draft was to have been the General
> Assembly, and it is so envisioned in the ICANN Bylaws also (see VI-B.4).
> Currently, the General Assembly doesn't even exist.
<details snipped>
Again, this is not something that is related to the Paris Draft. Even under
the current rules we have a General Assembly. If the GA is not (yet)
empowered, it has little to do with the Paris vs. BMW draft, but with the
fact that we are unable to put pressure on the Council to have it done.
Look at a simple example. There was a lot of discussion about the closeness
of the Names Council meetings. Well, today's meeting is broadcasted in Real
Audio.
The same thing will happen for the General Assembly. Put pressure on the
Council with concrete proposals, and we will go forward. Say "drop the whole
thing", and we will stay put forever (or at least for a couple of years,
until the next iteration).
> 4. The Paris Draft had extensive review and comment mechanisms. The ICANN
> Bylaws also require the following:
>
<details snipped>
Again, I believe that to look back, and say: "Life would have been nicer
under the Paris Draft rule" does not make us progress.
The point is to insist on application of the ICANN bylaws, and to establish
these mechanisms for review.
> These are just some of the big differences between the DNSO as seen by the
> Paris Draft and the DNSO as currently functioning.
>
I think that these are simply differences between the DNSO as is, and as it
should be.
Are we able to make proposals and build momentum around them, all this
resisting to the temptation to throw away the baby with the dirty water, or
not?
Regards
Roberto
P.S.: can somebody tell me why we copy this thread to somebody
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) that states in his/her autoreply that:
1. he/she will not answer electronically, but will be able to answer via
snail mail;
2. he/she will not answer messages coming from outside Oregon ;>)
