Thanks Jay for explaining the undercurrents behind the Paris decision
on "1.0 INTRODUCTION".
I must say that I like the reworking of the essence of the ORSC
position into text that satisfied all parties to the Paris Draft.
I also want to say that we shodul all look at the Paris Draft to see
if we can support it, and if not, what do we want changed.
Our ORSC pariticpants will be looking at it very carefuoly to see if
all our basic common values are included in useful ways, and wil make
suggestions to remedy any shortcomings that we see, but we are not at
all interested in just killing it off because of who else has endorsed
it, or because it has some features that we wish were not there.
And, I will note, that those who are just looking for ways to cast
stones at the Paris Drft in the hopes of sinking it, or discrediting
it because of who created it, regardless of its content, are only
hurting themselves and their constituents.
At the Washington meeeting on January 22, I clearly stated that ORSC
was going to continue working in public with others to find broad
consensus common ground, regardless of who might hold telephone
conference calls or private closed meetings with the same goal. This
was a fair warning that our public process would continue, and so it
has.
We are all quite pleasantly surprised to see that the closed Paris
Meeting actually produced a good common basis for continued work, and
so far, we seem to have broad support from ORSC and from the other
primary endorsing groups, many TLD registries and a number of public
interest groups. I attribute the success in Paris to their being open
to all other drafting group postions and seriously working to find
common ground, which I believe they found.
To be perfectly honest, I did not expect the Paris Meeting to have any
chance of success, and when Jay asked for ORSC blessing to attend on
behalf of ORSC's interests, he only got luke warm support, adn we
continued to work full bore with AIP and others to mele yet another
draft without waiting for anythign from Paris. So, ORSC is pleasntly
surprised at how much progress was achieved.
So, I suggest that we all calm down, take a deep breath, and start
working together with keyboards in place of hatchets. I strongly urge
all of our Paris Draft supporters to avoid engagement in the hostile
discussions that this "Flawed Draft" discussion thread has spawned.
That way there be dragons;-)... Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Sat, 06 Feb 1999 15:07:30 -0500:
}
}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. =20
}404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}
}At 2/5/99, 09:54 PM, Michael Sondow wrote:
}>Kent Crispin a =E9crit:
}>
}>> 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.
}>
