Don Heath wrote: > No matter how hard you may try to cast the consensus proposal supported > by ISOC The consensus was in Monterrey, not in the proposal submitted to ICANN. There was no consensus in that proposal. It was written by Kent Crispin, Michael Heltzer, and maybe one or two others. I know. I was in Monterrey for three days; I'm on the DNSO.org lists; I participated in the teleconference when Kent Crispin and Michael Heltzer turned the drafting team away from the consensus proposal; I was in Washington; I watched the whole thing, on a daily basis, from before Monterrey up to February 5th. Where were you? I don't remember seeing or hearing from you once during the whole process. How do you know what went on? By hearsay from Lynn St. Amour? Or from Javier Sola? > as giving "control of the domain space to the trademarks lobby > and the big businesses they represent," in the end the reality of the > consensus proposal won't change. The DNSO.org produced no consensus proposal. You have been misinformed. > It is a very good proposal that was > hammered out in an open process Untrue. Unless by open you mean open between Kent Crispin and Michael Heltzer. > where many compromises were made in > order to get the broadest consensus. Again, you are misinformed, or worse. The compromises were hammered out in barcelona and Monterrey, and on the lists. They were thrown away, in favor of a deal between special interests. > The proposal most certainly has > not given control to any specific group. Do you believe in creating voting constituencies for special-interest groups that wish to restrict the allocation of domain names to the people they represent? Because that is what the proposal you are defending has done. > I assure you that that process is still open to all who would be > willing to >honestly work for a still broader consensus resolution. I joined it in that spirit and worked hard to help it proceed, and in so doing incurring the enmity of former friends on the open lists. But the DNSO.org process was sidetracked and betrayed by a few people who had control of the website and mailing lists, and who had made a deal with a few trademark lawyers to give them undeserved power. > The group with a consistent narrow focus, the small collection of > people driven by those claiming to be part of ORSC, seems to be quite > unwilling to work with anyone but themselves. The Paris draft isn't an ORSC draft. It's primarily an AIP draft, and AIP isn't directly involved in most of the controversies going on since it's an organization of website designers and others who don't have a direct stake in domain name allocation. It's supported by a wide array of participants in this process, from African registries, to non-profit ccTLDs run as a community service, to domain rights advocates, to user groups like my own. If any proposal can be said to have wide support, it's the Paris draft, not the CORE/INTA draft. But read them for yourself, since you haven't been directly involved in this process. And look at the lists of supporters. Do you want ISOC branded and stigmatized forever as being unilaterally pro-big business, to the detriment of the Internet?
