Hi Michael,
With all due respect, you are wrong!
No deals were made in Paris -- simply an effort
at finding the common ground between competing
ideas and philosophies.
My favorite example is the debate over RFC 1591.
There were three very different, and in some cases,
divergent positions on this topic. Here are my
personal impressions of the debate:
One position was that of the sovereign ccTLDs.
They felt that some bad decisions had been made
wrt ccTLD delegations, and that RFC 1591 was an
inappropriate standard for the administration of
all ccTLDs. They didn't want those decisions and
policies to be entrenched by the DNSO formation.
Another position was that of the competitive
ccTLDs. They had invested much time and money
developing their ccTLDs, and they didn't want
to lose their investments arbitrarily, nor have
to change their policies without some fair and
equitable process.
Finally, the ORSC position was that we are where
we are today because of history. We can't pretend
that the history never occurred, and we can't simply
start over with a new set of policies and rules.
After a relatively *long* and sometimes passionate
debate, we came up with the following wording:
>1.0 INTRODUCTION
<snip>
>The starting point for discussions within the DNSO will be that current
>registries operate under current RFCs. The purpose of the DNSO will be to
>provide a fair process, taking into account both historical relationships and
>the need for change, to evolve any new rules.
IMHO, this is a model that worked, one that we can
use to reconcile the remaining differences between
the DNSO applications.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
At 2/5/99, 09:54 PM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Kent Crispin a �crit:
>
>> Essentially all the supporters of the Paris draft are registries. A
>> more accurate Name would be the "Registries Draft", which is what I
>> will call it henceforth.
>
>This appears to be essentially true. The AIP and ORSC have made a deal with
>the registries in order to have a winning draft. And the DNSO.org has made a
>deal with the trademark people. The drafts are flawed. Which is worse?
>Probably, both are no good. In one case, big business and their trademark
>lawyers will dominate the DNSO, through the Names Council. In the other, the
>TLD registries will dominate, through the Names Council and the ICANN Board
>members. Both are against the principles of equality and community
>consensus.
>
>Is there any way for the DNSO not to duplicate the selfish special-interest
>power-playing that have dominated this process since its beginning, and
>which are reflected in the policies of ICANN, which all the special
>interests of the DNS pretend hypocritically to abjure?
>
>In order for anything truly consensual and broad-based to come from this
>process is for the participants to undergo a change of philosophy, a change
>of heart. But this seems to be too much to ask.
>
