Jay and all, I suppose I am being skeptical here, However I cannot see that any comments by Bret or actions or considerations have any real impact at this juncture regarding an DNSO or other SO effort at this point considering that we (INEGroup) and mhsc, as well as ORSC have all filed protests to the NIST Sol.No.: 52SBNT9C1020. We are not nearing completion of our counter proposal pending the now ongoing process of re-review of the NIST Sol.No.: 52SBNT9C1020. Jay Fenello wrote: > Hi Bret, > > Thank you for your forwarded comments. > I think they show that much real progress > was potentially made today. > > I was surprised at how far we have apparently > come from where we were when the Washington > conference ended on Friday. > > For those who were not there, the entire two > day event seemed like it was going to be a > bust until late Friday afternoon. Then, in > response to some grumblings from the audience, > the mediator changed the agenda. And that > started a process of real dialog, one that > showed at least *some* signs of progress. > > Today's conference call was proposed as a > way to continue that momentum. And FWIW, > it certainly *felt* like it did :-) > > As we discussed the issues in some detail, > we soon found some areas that we had come > closer together on. > > We also found some areas where we still didn't > agree. But even here, progress was made when > we dove into the underlying issues reflected > in our differences. > > For example, when others were objecting to > the ORSC proxy system, we made progress when > I describe the underlying motivation for the > provision, as best I understand it. > > In this case, I described it as a way to > ensure that constituencies remain fluid and > self forming. This was a concept that appeared > to have wide support. > > (It will be interesting to see what other > suggestions surface to address this concern.) > > What is un-decided is how to keep the momentum > going from here. I remain hopeful that we will > continue to find creative ways to use the Internet, > in conjunction with tradition methods, to find a > broad and acceptable consensus. > > With that said, I'd say that today's experiment > using the ORSC list had mixed results. For me, > it was marginally distracting typing messages. > And while I did value the messages I received > in return, I wish there had been more of them. > (And Richard was right, response time through > this process is a little slow.) > > All in all, a productive telecon. > > Respectfully, > > Jay Fenello > President, Iperdome, Inc. > 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com > > At 1/26/99, 03:22 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > >Jay, Mike and Kent -- FYI. A copy of what I posted to the AIP public > >list. -- Bret > > > >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > >Dear group... > > > >I just got off the telephone conference among the following: me (for the > >AIP), Jay Fenello (for the ORSC), Mike Heltzer (for the INTA), and Kent > >Crispin (for the dnso.org group). The purpose was to find places where we > >agree that might be the foundation for a joint draft. Let me hit the high > >points: > > > >(1) We started by finding consensus in a surprising place. We all agreed > >that the Names Council should be a facilitator of the policy > >recommendation process, and not *the* place where policy recommendations > >are made. As you'll recall, we had been concerned that the dnso.org draft > >and the INTA draft were setting up the Names Council as the proverbial > >"council of elders" that would make all policy recommendations. They both > >appear to have moved in the direction of the AIP and the ORSC. INTA also > >appears to agree with the committee process, and I suggested that the > > >detailed "Research Committee" concept from the AIP draft would be a good > >place to go for guidance on what this should look like. > > > >(2) We also *appear* to agree on the idea that the Names Council should > >be able to move a draft policy recommendation forward by approving it for > >submission to ICANN and that it should *not* be able to ignore policy > >recommendations from the DNSO membership. I proposed that the AIP model > >-- which restricts the Names Council to accepting, rejecting, or sending > >back a proposal -- was a place for compromise. I think we have agreement > >on the concept, but we'll need to discuss it further. > > > > ** Agreement on (1) and (2) was surprising and welcome, > > but I don't read the current drafts of the dnso.org > > and INTA proposals as doing the things that were agreed. > > So there's still a "drafting issue" to work on. Again, > > I suggested that the AIP proposal has language on both > > points. > > > >(3) We also may be moving closer together on the idea of a structured, > >constituency based Names Council. The concern (from the AIP and the ORSC) > >about such a Names Council primarily comes when that Names Council is > >given significant latitude in recommending policy to ICANN; if the > >Names Council functions along the model suggested by (1) and (2) above, > >this obviously becomes less of a concern. We should discuss this point. > > > >(4) We also appeared to agree that *if* there is a constituency based > >membership (still an open question), the constituencies ought to be > >fluid. We agree to examine models for doing this. > > > >(5) The place where we seem to disagree the most is on who should be a > >member of the DNSO. Both the AIP and dnso.org proposals have a > >general/at-large membership, and the INTA appears willing to accept such > >an animal. The ORSC proposal limits membership to domain name holders. I > >raised the concern that the ORSC limitation effectively gives only one > >voice to all of the officers and employees at the world's largest > >companies -- effectively putting them on the same basis as small > >companies and individuals. Jay responded that the proxy system envisioned > >by the ORSC proposal would allow powerful stakeholders to gather support. > >I'll have to take another look at the ORSC proposal in that regard. I'm > >still concerned that the body of domain name holders is smaller than the > >body of persons and companies that legitimately care about DNS issues. > >This is the biggest difference between the AIP and ORSC proposals. > > > >There was also concern voiced by INTA that opening up the DNSO to a > >"general membership" gives the undefined persons who fall in this > >"general/at-large" category a voice in DNS policy as well as a voice in > >the yet-to-be-created ICANN general membership. I suspect that this > >concern largely arises because the ICANN membership is still a work in > >progress and no one knows what it will look like or what its authority > >will be. > > > >Our proposal was also different in that it envisioned existing membership > >organizations coming together to operate as the DNSO, rather than > > >creating a new membership body out of whole cloth. I still think that > >this is preferable (as it would provide instant functionality, > >credibility, financial stability, and expertise), but there is either > >distrust or ignorance (not in a pejorative sense) of the model. > > > > * * * * * > > > >We may be moving closer. Any thoughts? > > > > -- Bret > > 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____________________________________________
