Jay Fenello a �crit:
> With all due respect, you are wrong!
That's not impossible :)
> No deals were made in Paris -- simply an effort
> at finding the common ground between competing
> ideas and philosophies.
The difference between making a deal and finding common ground is
semantical. It depends on your point of view. From the point of view of free
markets, open competition, and the unlimited creation and use of the DNS
that the ORSC has taken in the past, an acceptance of the status quo ante
wrt registries would seem to be more like deal-making than common ground.
> 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.
Indeed. But I wonder just which parts of RFC 1591 they'd like to change, and
which TLDs they would apply those changes to.
> 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.
Quite right. And what is that process to be?
> 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.
We could. It might be a good thing. Sudden change. The busting up of
conventional methods. Isn't that what the Internet's all about? But
obviously we won't be allowed to. Does that mean we have to go to the other
extreme and find some static uniformity, in order to be able to placate
everyone? If that's what consensus means, I'm not sure I like it. It's
anti-competitive. There have to be winners and losers, or there isn't fair
play. With this institutionalization of the Internet, there will be
rule-making, even if the rules are simply that no rules are to be made.
> 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.
That doesn't seem to be a model. It's just double-talk, putting off the
inevitable. Which is alright in itself, I suppose, since nothing much can be
done about the situation for the moment anyway, except that no mechanisms
for approaching the problem are there. I would have liked to see something a
little more adventurous, like forced arbitration, or at least a committee to
come up with some alternatives, some radical alternatives. If the DNSO
becomes imbued with the prevailing sense of inactivity, it could be
counter-productive. Innovation is still the way ahead, I hope.
To tell you the truth, I don't think we're going to get very far in dealing
with the registry problem without including the ISPs, on the one hand, and
the RIRs, on the other. So what I would expect a progressive DNSO proposal
to contain are requirements for the formation of committees charged with
studying the needs and inperatives of the different constituencies, and some
mechanism for integration between the committees. That's why I have been
fighting against the separation of the SOs from each other and ICANN, and
why the research committee model of the AIP seemed more practical than the
others.
Maybe it's too soon for that. But it would be nice to see some wording in
the DNSO drafts that reflected a clear intention to grapple with the real
problems between the registry types, and the need for input on the question
from all the constituencies, including those of the PSO and ASO.
The statement at the beginning of the draft about the DNSO being part of
ICANN is good, but it stops short. Why not bite the bullet and spell out the
practical rationale for that integration, extending it to the other SOs?
There are immediate pragmatic reasons for beginning integrated research into
possible solutions to the registry problem, which is not a problem
restricted to them, and they should be made clear to ICANN, to the other
groups writing DNSO proposals, and to the other SOs. As the draft stands
now, it will sound to many like an avoidance of the problems, which is
unfortunately just what certain elements desire, and later, when flexibility
and dynamism are asked of them, they'll cite the draft as a pretext for
avoiding the issues.
