Colleagues,
As a member of the DNSO.ORG Drafting Team, I most strongly urge you
all to express public support for the "Paris Draft" also known as
ORSC/AIP/CENTR/IATLD/LATLD/APTLD application, and to express your
disaproval of the submission by the self appointed "leadership" of
lobbyists that have hijacked the DNSO.ORG (but fortunately not the
DNSO process).
In Monterrey the Drafting Team was selected by the participants to
write a draft application which would be put to the membership.
This draft has been written.
Kent Crispin then merged the special interests of TM into the infamous
"Kent's Draft" (ostensibly to gain broad consensus) without accepting
any single opposing position. From anyone.
The lobbyists promised that the instructing Monterrey participants
would vote on both drafts to decide which one would be submitted, as
"Kent's Draft" was only to be an effort to gain broad consensus.
This of course was never intended as we can see from the submission of
"Kent's Draft" without *ANY* discussion, vote or even posting to the
list.
The procedure violates the letter and the spirit of the ICANN rules
about transparency, openness, fairness and neutrality.
The application is only backed by a handful of Internet wanna-be
insiders, who stand to gain immensely financially to the detriment of
the vast majority of Internet users, be they commercial,
non-commercial or individuals.
Whether ISOC is in fact backing it remains to be seen.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Amadeu Abril i Abril writes:
> This one could be not very precisely identified as "DNSO.org
> mahjority + commercial and TM groups (Wash meeting group) -
> registries". But this is very approximate.
Self Appointed Majority.
But not the Monterrey participants. And hopefully not the majority of
the DNSO.ORG's members.
> The second one coul.d be termed as the "registries proposal" but i
> think they prefer to call it the "Paris proposal".
It is the ORSC/AIP draft that has been developed by a public,
transparent process. In Paris this was then merged with the comments by
CENTR and supported by APTLD, LATLD and IATLD.
Efforts are underway to secure the support of the AF(rican)TLDs.
> What I cannnot provide yet is an explanation of why we do have two
> proposals. I am to furious, disgusted and frustrated to send such a
> mail. The truth doews not always help :-(
The reason for the second draft are outlined above. As it was
impossible to reason with the self appointed lobbyist "leadership"
from within DNSO.ORG separate efforts had to be undertaken.
> I promise to calm down and gcome back with some clarifications later.
This is hardly necessary any more, both applications are submitted,
let's see which one will be accepted.
el
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\ / Swakopmund State Hospital
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * | Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)
