Jay and all,
Jay Fenello wrote:
> 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.
Unfortunately the Paris Meeting was never completely decimated
to all of the "Interested Parties" that have been discussing these issues
in a reasonable amount of time for most to participate or attend. Hence it
should not be considered a relevant meeting of any real consequence.
>
>
> 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.
Agreed.
>
>
> 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.
there should be no need to change any existing policies for
existing registries.
>
>
> 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.
Agreed. Neither can we allow policies to be decided by the
few. ALL interested parties as is stated clearly in the White Paper
must participate actively in any policy decisions for registries/registrars.
>
>
> 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.
This statement to which you refer is far too weak and
not inclusive enough.
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
