[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. __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
