Amadeu,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Amadeu Abril i Abril
writes:
[...]
> As many of you are aware, there are two drafts that have come out of
> the so called DNSO.org process.
I actually wanted to call you a liar, but as you are a lawyer this
must be caused by a professional (habitual) inability to discern
between fact and fiction (Remember you are not talking to a jury of
twelve people who were to ignorant to avoid jury duty in the first
place).
There are at least six drafts that have come out of the so called DNSO
process.
The Monterrey Draft (DNSO.ORG)
The INTA Draft (INTA)
The Kent's Draft (Kent Crispin/CORE/INTA under the name of DNSO.ORG)
The ORSC Draft (ORSC)
The AIP Draft (AIP)
The CENTR Comments (CENTR)
and
The Paris Draft (ORSC/AIP/IATLD/APTLD/LATLD and others)
The MTY Draft and the Kent's Draft were to be proposed to the DNSO.ORG
membership (participants) for a vote prior to submission.
You personally wrote repeatedly that the Kent's Draft was just an
unofficial document to try and see if more consensus could be reached.
Of course, you and your crony's have now submitted the Kent's Draft
under the DNSO.ORG name to ICANN, without this having ever been
sanctioned, voted upon, or even discussed by membership. Not even
taking into consideration my repeated, strong objections as a member
of the Drafting Team and my unsuccessful demand to include my minority
opinion.
In the real world this would be called fraudulent, at the very least,
never mind that you managed to violate, every single of the ICANN's
principles.
> While this is not what was intended, it is what has resulted and we
> need to work with this.
No, *YOU* need to *LIVE* with this.
> I mean that this is clearly a failure of the process itself, as its
> double goal was to provide a forum for discussion and a process for
> drafting a common application form.
You and Kent manipulated the process, in very bad faith.
> Now we all have to decide if this clear failure is also the end of
> the process or it still has some value in order to help in the
> process of convergence between the two drafts. Provided, indeed,
> that this is possible and wanted by the parties.
It is abundantly clear to everyone concerned, that you and Kent are
the main obstacles to a consensus.
> The first draft is based on the DNSO.org work in Barcelona and
> Monterrey, and was built on by the organizers of the Washington
> meeting.
Again, this is not the truth.
The archives will bear me out, or as you like to say, read your own
email before you post,
You are speaking about the unofficial Kent's Draft that he embarked
upon with your support without accepting any input contrary to his
views, against my and others strong objections (throughout).
You specifically ensured the DNSO.ORG membership that it was an
unofficial document and that membership/participants would decide
which one to submit.
> Let's call it the BMW draft (Barcelona-Monterrey-Washington).
> Unfortunately the final building and coordination was done outside
> of the dnso.org lists.
To call this anything with BCN or MTY included is a perversion.
It's Kent's Draft or maybe even Kent's INTA Draft. Nothing more,
Nothing less.
> While this is not what was intended, it's what resulted, which is
> unfortunate but something we need to move on from.
> This application has support coming from a wide range of interests
> (what we have agreed to name "consituencies") and also significant
> support from witihin our process -- CORE, POC, INTA, ISOC, EuroISPA,
> etc. have signed on to it.
This application has virtually no support whatsoever.
Only a few, inconsequential special interest groups who stand to gain
immensely from creating an additional, expensive, and unecessary layer
(registrars) between the consumer (registrants) and supplier
(registries), and TradeMark representatives support this. Neither is
actually involved in the actual operation of the Internet.
Whether ISOC's management gets away with "supporting" this aginst the
wishes of their members remains to be seen.
> But not all the particpants will support it.
Actually very few will support it. Even Kilanm Chon, who chaired BCN
and MTY doesn't, neither do Nii Quaynor nor Oscar Robles.
> This is why it is less than Barcelona and Monterrey. Many of the
> organisers of the Washington meeting (ITAA, WITSA, ICC..) also
> support it, and this is why it is "more" than Barcelona & Monterrey.
ROFLPMP!!
> [I have already sent this draft, both in Word and text
> formats. Please be aware that the text file was NOT the final
> version.If you arre unable or unwilling to read the Word files,
> you'll find a text version at
> http://www.witsa.org/press/domainapp.htm. Soon this one and any
> other one will be at our website]
It is quite telling for the development process of Kent's Draft, that
it is on the WITSA website *BEFORE* it's on the own Web Site of the
organization that you allege to have produced it (WWW.DNSO.ORG).
> The second draft has resulted from a meeting organized very recently
> by the ccTLD organisations and NSI in Paris this week.
That's quite blatant.
The Paris Draft results from the ORSC and AIP merger augmented by the
CENTR comments and public input, refined in Paris. Though I personally
do not know AIP people the process was quite open through the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list (and others).
> Procedurally, they wrote a new draft from scratch instead of
> building/amending/patchworking on our previous drafts.
That may be so or not, but so what?
> Let's call it the Paris aap form.
Let's Call it by its name, the Paris Draft.
> Hope the final version will be soon on these lists, as well as the
> final list of signatories.
> Among them, you will probably find many particpants in this process,
> and leading ones: CENTR, APTLD, LAccTLD, .ca, AITLD, ORSC (or at
> least their represntatives within our process).
And AIP.
IATLD have endorsed it and endorsement from ccTLDs are coming every
hour. First endorsements from Af(rica)-TLD/AIG are coming in
suggesting that Africa as a Region will endorse it.
[...]
> Regardless of how these two drafts came about, or why, we now need
> to focus our efforts on reaching one draft in the month open for
> public comment and the upcoming meeting in Singapore.
I could not agree more. However the DNSO.ORG process is so tainted by
yours and Kent's manipulations that you will find life very difficult.
> Hope that the promoters ovf both drafts will share on these lists
> their views on how this could be better done, and if they think that
> this process/forum is useful to that putpose.
I am a founding supporter of the Paris Draft and though I still have
some problems with details, as it is gaining wide consensus, I propose
to take it up and run with it. We can sort out the casualties later.
Even Michael Sondow who has been as vocal in criticizing you two as I
but on a different level has signed off on it on behalf of the ICIIU.
> As for "us", the Transition team should assess whether it wants to
> undertake this effort (and the related needed reforms) If not,
> please put forward other suggestions. It will also need to find new
> blood to take the lead on this effort...or alternatively more
> cooperation among parties to achieve the same objective.
I think this is an excellent suggestion.
In fact I have suggested this repeatedly in the past:
I call on you and Kent to withdraw immediately from all
involvement in the management of the DNSO process.
Maybe then we can salvage some of the mess you got us in.
> Amadeu PS: Some members of the transition team asked me to provide
> some kind of "official" explanation of what has happened. This is
> more or less what I was required to do. In fact only Theresa has
> commented the draft I sent some hours ago to the TT list, so don't
> take it as an official statement form the Transition team.
> Neither as what I really would like explaining about what
> heppend. Just as a compromise among the two things ;-)
So you are telling us, the above is all sucked out of the blue sky?
el
