[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: Folks, I liked Jay's summary. Let me add few lines to Bret's comments. Bret Fausett wrote: > Jay Fenello wrote: > >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. > > This is the split, but all the talk about "top-down" and "bottom-up" at > the Washington meeting tended to polarize the proposals, which really > exist along a continuum. As I see it, strong top-down management with > broad consensus-based policy-making can coexist, and the AIP proposal > tried to do that. So did the CENTRE proposal. These two "hybrids" viewed > the Names Council (and in the AIP proposal, the Research Committees) as > "managers" of a consensus-building process, rather than as the > policy-makers themselves. > I admit it was not easy to resist the temptation of promoting one or the other draft, but we could rather focus on what the real problem is, and what are the points to solve. ;>) I disagree with the wording "top-down vs. bottom-up" because, while it is perfect for suggesting emotional reactions, it is not appropriate in describing the difference. In fact, no proposal is implying a top-down process. The philosophical difference is, as somebody already pointed out in Washington, is between "representative democracy" and "popular democracy". In other words, whether (or rather to which extent) the membership is willing to "delegate authority" to a body it has elected. Delegation of authority is something that indeed does need to be dealt with. I have been saying this for months to little avail I might add. We support a "representative democracy" approach, but to a lesser degree then any of the current drafts (Other than ours) would suggest. Any delegation must and rightfully should, be determined by the At-Large membership as that At-Large membership decides the need is warranted. Hence, in the beginning there should only be the implementation or recommendation of policy on DNS issues, with respect to any DNSO to the ICANN. My personal opinion is that we should discuss what are the powers that will stay with the "general assembly"of Members, and what powers will be delegated to the Council, knowing that, if it is philosophically appropriate to claim all the power to the Assembly, it is neither efficient nor practical. The answer as to how the power balance is determined is that the Council only can recommend to the ICANN policy that has been approved by the DNSO At-Large membership. The Council may propose policy or except policy proposals form other groups but must get voted upon approval from the At-Large membership before recommending it to the ICANN for review. Personally, I don't think that there are great obstacles in coming to an agreement on this point. INTA may have a more "enterprise-like" approach, while others may have a more "city-hall-like" approach, but it should not be difficult to make every party aware of the reasons and concerns behind each position, and come to a common proposal. snip> > If there is a place for consensus, perhaps we'll find it in a strong, > managerial Names Council that leads a consensus-building process, when > appropriate, among a larger group of members. I'll read all of the > proposals again with that in mind. > Agree. Somebody disagrees? > >The other > >is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and > >inclusive, or structured and limited. > > Isn't the open (no constituencies) vs. structured (constituencies) Names > Council really about making sure that all interested stakeholders have a > voice? All five proposals understand that this is necessary; the > proponents just solve the problem in different ways. > Again, the problem is wording. Why should a flat membership be considered more "open" or more "inclusive" than a membership structured in constituencies? Constituencies is a form of gerrymandering is why Roberto. Our goal is not to gather applauses on a smart wording, but to point out the alternatives, and focus on the implications of either choice. The problem with the former, as also pointed out at the 1999-01-23 Membership meeting in Boston, is capture by a powerful entity of the individual votes. This argument is a canard. It is not likely and I would argue not even possible for any capture by any "Group" of members using a flat membership model. The problem with the latter is the definition of the constituencies, the lack of flexibility, and the relative voting power. This is only one problem. In fact with combining of two or more constituencies that is a greater risk of Capture than with a flat model. The risk of capture can be lowered by not allowing proxies. IMHO, when defining a new body or a new approach to the solution of a problem, we should avoid all paths that will be irreversible. If capture by proxy will occurr, we will never be able to go back.
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
I left the [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the CC list, but I STILL have not been able to send or receive mail from it On 27-Jan-99 Roberto Gaetano wrote: Folks, I liked Jay's summary. Let me add few lines to Bret's comments. snipped Regards Roberto Hello Roberto. It is late, and I am going to catch some sleep before resuming work in a few hours, but I wanted to make a rather broad comment on your message. I truly wish the rest of the leadership of the DNSO.org (and you know who I mean, even if DNSO.org continues to deny that this leadership group exists) would be as open to compromise as I am seeing you be in this message. While I disagree with some of the salient points of your analysis (which I reserve the right to comment on after I have had some sleep :), your statements left a wide latitude for compromise that brings hope to this process now developing a draft that merges the best from the proposals currently being considered, and develops a set of documents that are truly representative of a the broad (and vast) stakeholder community. I also saw a lot in your comments that I agreed with and that made a lot of common sense. The addition of the Ireland and AIP drafts has brought a fresh air of ideas and it seems they also brought a better sense of working together amongst more of the participants. Perhaps it would be a wake up call to the DNSO.org that indeed there is substantial opposition to a lot of what is in their merged draft, and bring us all into a better sense of working together now. If the introduction of "competing" drafts has truly resulted in us all stepping forward and working together, than it has served the purpose I desired it to when I began advocating it (quite vocally ;). I'll try to post a more specific set of comments later, but what I have seen in the discussion traffic today makes me feel much more positive about this than I have felt for a number of weeks. -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 27-Jan-99 Time: 03:38:45 -- __ 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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
Folks, I liked Jay's summary. Let me add few lines to Bret's comments. Bret Fausett wrote: Jay Fenello wrote: 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. This is the split, but all the talk about "top-down" and "bottom-up" at the Washington meeting tended to polarize the proposals, which really exist along a continuum. As I see it, strong top-down management with broad consensus-based policy-making can coexist, and the AIP proposal tried to do that. So did the CENTRE proposal. These two "hybrids" viewed the Names Council (and in the AIP proposal, the Research Committees) as "managers" of a consensus-building process, rather than as the policy-makers themselves. I admit it was not easy to resist the temptation of promoting one or the other draft, but we could rather focus on what the real problem is, and what are the points to solve. ;) I disagree with the wording "top-down vs. bottom-up" because, while it is perfect for suggesting emotional reactions, it is not appropriate in describing the difference. In fact, no proposal is implying a top-down process. The philosophical difference is, as somebody already pointed out in Washington, is between "representative democracy" and "popular democracy". In other words, whether (or rather to which extent) the membership is willing to "delegate authority" to a body it has elected. My personal opinion is that we should discuss what are the powers that will stay with the "general assembly"of Members, and what powers will be delegated to the Council, knowing that, if it is philosophically appropriate to claim all the power to the Assembly, it is neither efficient nor practical. Personally, I don't think that there are great obstacles in coming to an agreement on this point. INTA may have a more "enterprise-like" approach, while others may have a more "city-hall-like" approach, but it should not be difficult to make every party aware of the reasons and concerns behind each position, and come to a common proposal. snip If there is a place for consensus, perhaps we'll find it in a strong, managerial Names Council that leads a consensus-building process, when appropriate, among a larger group of members. I'll read all of the proposals again with that in mind. Agree. Somebody disagrees? The other is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and inclusive, or structured and limited. Isn't the open (no constituencies) vs. structured (constituencies) Names Council really about making sure that all interested stakeholders have a voice? All five proposals understand that this is necessary; the proponents just solve the problem in different ways. Again, the problem is wording. Why should a flat membership be considered more "open" or more "inclusive" than a membership structured in constituencies? Our goal is not to gather applauses on a smart wording, but to point out the alternatives, and focus on the implications of either choice. The problem with the former, as also pointed out at the 1999-01-23 Membership meeting in Boston, is capture by a powerful entity of the individual votes. The problem with the latter is the definition of the constituencies, the lack of flexibility, and the relative voting power. The risk of capture can be lowered by not allowing proxies. IMHO, when defining a new body or a new approach to the solution of a problem, we should avoid all paths that will be irreversible. If capture by proxy will occurr, we will never be able to go back. OTOH, if after start of operations we can see that the structure works reasonably, and the voice of the end users is really limited by the lack of proxies, we can always implement it. Just to add my personal view, if we vote on the net, why do we need proxies at all? It will take as much time, if not more, to the end user to mail in a proxy than mail in a vote (unless we think of "permanent" proxies - but do you see the problem with it?). The problem with the definition of constituencies, OTOH, has much to do with a power struggle among constituencies. I am wondering whether this is not moot in a body that has as a main purpose not to "define" policy, but to "recommend" policy to ICANN. In other words, ICANN will decide. We only have the task of making sure that the Council is representative of all constituencies. Proposals like the one Stef made in Monterrey (distribute ignorance, or something like this) will be perfectly fit for purpose. As for the worry that the Registries have about policy being recommended "upon them", i.e. policy that will heavily affect Registries being recommended against their will by a majority not including them, we can correct this. Not, of course, with some kind of "generic" veto power by the Registries, as this either puts the Registries as being more equal
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
Jay Fenello a écrit: Hi Bret, You are correct -- I was framing the debate, rather than describing its spectrum. I agree that both the AIP and CENTRE proposals are somewhere in between. Looking forward to tomorrow. What exactly is it that you're "looking forward to tomorrow"? Can you share this with the rest of us? The 150-odd people who attended the Washington January 22nd meeting, and the rest of the Internet community as well, were promised daily reports on the progress of the negotiations between the five DNSO proposals presented at the meeting. Where are those progress reports? __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
Jay Fenello wrote: P.S. I have asked that the CC be transcribed, but this has not yet been confirmed. I was asked by one of the conference organizers whether I would consent to the call being recorded and then transcribed or made available on the internet via RealAudio. Of course, I consented and thought this was a good idea. I have no confirmation that it will happen though. -- Bret __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
Hi Bret, You are correct -- I was framing the debate, rather than describing its spectrum. I agree that both the AIP and CENTRE proposals are somewhere in between. Looking forward to tomorrow. Jay. At 1/25/99, 11:35 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote: A few comments on Jay's summary, which sounds all the right notes. Jay Fenello wrote: 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. This is the split, but all the talk about "top-down" and "bottom-up" at the Washington meeting tended to polarize the proposals, which really exist along a continuum. As I see it, strong top-down management with broad consensus-based policy-making can coexist, and the AIP proposal tried to do that. So did the CENTRE proposal. These two "hybrids" viewed the Names Council (and in the AIP proposal, the Research Committees) as "managers" of a consensus-building process, rather than as the policy-makers themselves. I understand that some have a concern that this does not allow quick, responsible decision-making when necessary, but the AIP proposal made allowances for this too. Section 8.2 of the AIP draft bylaws required policy-making by the Research Committee process "[w]henever practicable based on considerations of time and the complexity of the issues presented..." This left emergency and less important matters to the Names Council. If there is a place for consensus, perhaps we'll find it in a strong, managerial Names Council that leads a consensus-building process, when appropriate, among a larger group of members. I'll read all of the proposals again with that in mind. The other is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and inclusive, or structured and limited. Isn't the open (no constituencies) vs. structured (constituencies) Names Council really about making sure that all interested stakeholders have a voice? All five proposals understand that this is necessary; the proponents just solve the problem in different ways. The structured proposals try to ensure a voice by blocking out seats for certain parties; the non-structured proposals do this by seeking consensus. We all agree on the need for representation, but we distrust the other's way of ensuring it. I don't know if a common goal will necessarily lead to a common solution, but maybe we can start there. Any ideas? -- Bret __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
A few comments on Jay's summary, which sounds all the right notes. Jay Fenello wrote: 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. This is the split, but all the talk about "top-down" and "bottom-up" at the Washington meeting tended to polarize the proposals, which really exist along a continuum. As I see it, strong top-down management with broad consensus-based policy-making can coexist, and the AIP proposal tried to do that. So did the CENTRE proposal. These two "hybrids" viewed the Names Council (and in the AIP proposal, the Research Committees) as "managers" of a consensus-building process, rather than as the policy-makers themselves. I understand that some have a concern that this does not allow quick, responsible decision-making when necessary, but the AIP proposal made allowances for this too. Section 8.2 of the AIP draft bylaws required policy-making by the Research Committee process "[w]henever practicable based on considerations of time and the complexity of the issues presented..." This left emergency and less important matters to the Names Council. If there is a place for consensus, perhaps we'll find it in a strong, managerial Names Council that leads a consensus-building process, when appropriate, among a larger group of members. I'll read all of the proposals again with that in mind. The other is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and inclusive, or structured and limited. Isn't the open (no constituencies) vs. structured (constituencies) Names Council really about making sure that all interested stakeholders have a voice? All five proposals understand that this is necessary; the proponents just solve the problem in different ways. The structured proposals try to ensure a voice by blocking out seats for certain parties; the non-structured proposals do this by seeking consensus. We all agree on the need for representation, but we distrust the other's way of ensuring it. I don't know if a common goal will necessarily lead to a common solution, but maybe we can start there. Any ideas? -- Bret __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
At 08:54 PM 1/25/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote: The trademark/business community is *much*, **much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has been able to block (or at least slow down) many of the plans that we haven't agreed with. Don't you think they can as well? The nameserver operators of the world matter. Nobody else does. -- "That's why there is a Protocol SO. To decide what the next number after 16 is." - Dixon (tinc) __ 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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
On 26-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote: Think of it this way. The trademark/business community is *much*, **much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has been able to block (or at least slow down) many of the plans that we haven't agreed with. Don't you think they can as well? Maybe I'm naive in this aspect, but quite frankly, no I don't think they can. Not without a lot of negative publicity. -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25-Jan-99 Time: 17:52:59 -- __ 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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
At 1/25/99, 08:20 PM, William X. Walsh wrote: On 26-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote: Hi William, They have the influence they have, and that's enough influence to block *any* proposal put on the table. People keep claiming this, but I fail to see exactly how they can claim to be able to do this? Especially considering that they have been unable to use that influence to get their rules adopted at legislative levels. Why are we operating under this assumption? Think of it this way. The trademark/business community is *much*, **much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has been able to block (or at least slow down) many of the plans that we haven't agreed with. Don't you think they can as well? Jay. __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Impressions from Washington
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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
At 1/25/99, 07:02 PM, William X. Walsh wrote: On 25-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote: 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. Let them. They are already trying, and have resoundingly failed. They are only trying here because they know legislative efforts have failed (and most likely will continue to). They should have no more influence than any other domain name holders group (and by their numbers a very small group). Or are we giving them higher status because of their money? Hi William, They have the influence they have, and that's enough influence to block *any* proposal put on the table. Jay. P.S. This is not just about trademarks. It's about establishing a new system of International contracts. __ 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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
On 25-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote: 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. Let them. They are already trying, and have resoundingly failed. They are only trying here because they know legislative efforts have failed (and most likely will continue to). They should have no more influence than any other domain name holders group (and by their numbers a very small group). Or are we giving them higher status because of their money? -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25-Jan-99 Time: 15:58:41 -- __ 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
[ifwp] RE: Impressions from Washington
Jay and all, I guess I would have to ask, "is this really the point"? I am a Trademark Holder and paten holder, yet I do NOT agree with the intent or verbiage of the WIPO report, not to mention it overstepped its mandate in the White Paper. Many companies that I have personally talked to their management agree with me on this as well, yet WIPO is espousing differently. So, William's point is well taken, in that the Trademark community is NOT unified behind WIPO, and therefore has not more "STAKE" than anyone or any company/organization, and it shouldn't, neither should any Trademark owner. And THIS IS the point! Jay Fenello wrote: At 1/25/99, 08:20 PM, William X. Walsh wrote: > >On 26-Jan-99 Jay Fenello wrote: >> Hi William, >> >> They have the influence they have, >> and that's enough influence to block >> *any* proposal put on the table. > >People keep claiming this, but I fail to see exactly how they can claim to be >able to do this? > >Especially considering that they have been unable to use that influence to get >their rules adopted at legislative levels. > >Why are we operating under this assumption? Think of it this way. The trademark/business community is *much*, **much** stronger than ORSC, yet ORSC has been able to block (or at least slow down) many of the plans that we haven't agreed with. Don't you think they can as well? Jay. __ 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 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
