William,
You wrote:
> On 06-Feb-99 Javier SOLA wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> Please people, do not take these people's word on this stuff. READ THE
> DRAFTS
> and ask yourself these questions. Form your own opinion and PLEASE, above
> all,
> MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN by posting to the various lists of this
> discussion, but
> particularly to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list (please see http://lists.ifwp.org
> if you
> are not on it).
>
> The people so far on this list endorsing this proposal are all CORE
> members,
> who under their draft will have a great amount of control, at the expense
> of
> users and every one else but the rich trademark interests.
>
> READ the drafts. Take the time, and make your opinions heard. If you
> speak on
> behalf of an organization, company, or other entity, also let that be
> known,
> but just as important are individual endorsements.
>
> The WITSA (or DNSO.org/INTA) Draft application is at:
> http://www.witsa.org/press/domainapp.htm
>
> The Paris Application (Supported by CENTR, RIPE, IATLD, APTLD, directly by
> a
> number of ccTLD registries, ORSC, AIP, and others) :
> http://dnso.association.org/
>
According to information posted on the
http://dnso.association.org/organisations.html Web page, as today this draft
is supported by AIP, NSI, ORSC, DNRC, ISP/C, ICIIU.
The Web site shows no evidence of the support by CENTR, RIPE, IATLD, APTLD
(although I personally see this draft as a good draft, and I expect most
registries to explicitely support it in the next days).
Let me state that, even if this draft is focused on Registries, the
Registries have done a huge effort in smoothing up their initial position to
meet the needs of other constituencies.
While this text may not be 100% endorsable by everybody, it is a very good
starting point for the final convergence into a single document for the
whole Internet.
> The lists currently active with DNSO discussions :
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at http://www.ifwp.org) sponsored by the International
> Forum for the White Paper.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at
> http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/lwgate/DOMAIN-POLICY/) sponsored by
> Internet/Network Solutions
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/ )
> sponsored
> by the Open Root Server Confederation
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at http://www.dnso.org/docs/mailinglists.html )
> sponsored by the DNSO.org effort
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at http://www.dnso.org/docs/mailinglists.html
> )
> sponsored by the DNSO.org effort (closed list restricted to physical
> participants of the two DNSO.org meetings plus those added by the
> "Leadership"
> of DNSO.org that they felt would further their cause).
>
Odd that you find the above list relevant ;>).
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (info at
> http://dnso.association.org/discussions.html) sponsored by the Association
> of
> Internet Professionals who is also hosting the current "official" location
> of
> the Paris Draft.
>
What is striking, is the number of lists.
Can't we have two relevant lists, one per relevant draft, where to
concentrate the discussion?
Of course, the lists should be open to "the other camp".
I start beig really sick of having multiple copies of the same message, and
to have to monitor different lists for the same subject (on top of the other
lists I am subscribing for other reasons).
> Read the two drafts, read the side by side comparisons of the previous
> historical drafts at http://www.domainhandbook.com/comp-dnso.html to see
> what
> led up to these two drafts.
>
> But above all, do not be silent. In this case, every single one of us is
> a
> stakeholder, and we have an important responsibility, not only to
> ourselves and
> our own interests, but to those who are not represented in these forums,
> those
> who, for whatever reason, and not involved right now. We must examine
> what is
> fair, and be willing to compromise on those things that are in our own
> self
> interests in order to reach a fair an open consensus.
>
> Is the Paris draft the ideal I would want if the decision were mine
> solely?
> No. But in my opinion, having been a part of this process, it presents
> the
> best example of a fair compromise effort we have seen, and has strong
> value
> s of fairness and openness at it's base. We are already seeing the
> consequences of a closed process in the ICANN. Do we really want to see
> that
> happen in the DNSO also? The DNSO can be the tool through which we force
> the
> entire issue to be open and fair. The DNSO.org/WITSA draft only
> guarantees the
> same level of openness that ICANN will committ to. Is that really enough
> for
> you? Do you trust them that much? Do you not want some accountability in
> the
> decisions made?
>
> Send a clear message, and do not take my word, or the word of Kent Crispin
> or
> Javier Sola, or Amadeu Abril i Abril about what these drafts mean or what
> they
> contain. Read them yourself.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 06-Feb-99
> Time: 00:29:47
> ----------------------------------
> "We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
> of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
> - Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
