On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:34:45PM -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 2/13/99, 02:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >> There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
> >> Council some executive powers to deal with "emergency" or "pressing" DNS
> >> issues that may arise from time to time.
> >
> >"Emergency" is not a good term for it. The actual meaning is "within
> >a specified time". Here is a concrete, very realistic example: ICANN
> >has put forth registrar accreditation guidelines that include year to
> >year contracts. Sometime before the beginning of next term, ICANN
> >could *very well* want policy input from the DNSO as to how those
> >guidelines should be changed.
> >
> >Here's another very concrete, time-bounded example: NSI's contract
> >with the USG runs out in about two years. Some reasonable time
> >before that ICANN may *very well* want policy determinations on a
> >number of issues.
> >
> >In fact, timely action could be the norm, rather than the exception,
> >when you think about it -- the Internet changes quickly.
> >
> >Consequently, I think that the ability to put time constraints, and
> >the ability to forward non-consensus recommendations to ICANN,
> >should be a fundamental facility of the decision proces.
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> So, you would support the policy facilitation
> process as defined in the Paris draft if . . .
> 1) there were time limits on the combined research
> committee/fair hearing panel appeal process, and
>
> 2) if no consensus was reached within that time
> frame, it could be forwarded to ICANN as such?
No. I don't think we should work from the definitions in the Paris
draft at all, as I explained in the telecon today. And, as we
further agreed in the telecon today, the goal at this point is to try
to understand where the disagreements actually are, before we start
talking about changes to any documents.
For those that weren't in the telecon, here are the reasons I don't
want to work from the Paris draft (all that follows is my pure
*personal* opinion, and I do not speak for any other supporter of the
WMB application):
1. There is a vast disparity between the levels of support
For the WMB application (In the interests of avoiding possible
Intellectual Property entanglements I shall use "WMB" from now on,
instead of "BMW" :-)) we have the following submitters:
ITAA -- 11000 members
INTA -- 3200 members, 113 countries
EuroISPA -- Largest ISP association in the world
ICC -- 7000 members, 63 countries
AILPA -- over 10000 members
ISOC -- 6000 members, 150 countries
WITSA -- International Consortium of organizations
ECE -- New European organization just started w/ support of
european commission
CORE -- 85 registrars, 23 countries
POC -- represents 200+ MoU Signatories
This represents substantial business, user, registry/registry, and
general internet organizations.
For Paris we have the following submitters
NSI - one business
ORSC - a mailing list and a shell corporation
AIP - 8500 internet professionals from 50 countries
The Paris draft has an additional list of supporters, who were not
submitters:
DNRC -- 3 or 4 lawyers
DSo Internet Services -- a company
ICIIU -- Michael Sondow
Image Online Design, Inc -- a company
ISP/C -- a respectable internet organization, membership numbers uncertain
I should note that the WMB has a *very* large number of
non-submitting organizations that support it. But we elected not to
try to submit such a list, because it would be rather unwieldy, and a
lot of work to assemble, and the list of blanket organizations was
impressive enough.
And despite what David Johnson said in the telecon today, the
lineages are not really comparable, either. The process the WMP
application came from has gone on longer, with three significant
international meetings, and had a lot of visibility that the Paris
draft simply can't match. In fact, the ORSC draft could properly be
seen as an offshoot of the WMP process, since it was based on the
INTA draft.
[Interestingly enough, the ccTLD point of view was *very* well
represented in all that went before, and they have only recently
appeared to go off on an opaque tangent. They originally supported a
strict constituency model, argued against the powers of the old
at-large constituency, and so on...]
So, just on practical grounds, it is far easier to work from the
definitions provided in the document that the *large* majority
supports. Morever, it is simply more *fair* to work from that
document -- it simply isn't reasonable for a small group like the
supporters of the Paris draft to come in and expect to take over a
much larger effort.
[Note that in sheer numeric terms, the WMB support meets many
explicit standards for a "consensus" position -- better than 80% of
the total memberships of all the organizations involved, not even
getting to the issue that many of the WMB supporters are consortiums
whose individual members are large organizations in themselves. The
support is so strong that to my mind, ICANN will have a hard time
justifying *not* just taking the WMB draft as is.]
2. The Paris Draft is very much a draft.
It was submitted in essentially two versions, and you, Antony, and
others are already talking about yet more modifications. This makes
it impossible to know who precisely supports which version -- who
should be negotiated with -- who is proposing what -- what is serious
and what is not. The WMB is a serious application, with large
serious players standing behind it, and the areas for further work
are explicitly spelled out.
In any case, as I said before, this is just my personal opinion, and
does not necessarily reflect the opinion of any other supporter of
the WMB draft. And it should be obvious that with such a large body
of support for the WMB application, my opinions on possible
modifications to the Paris draft are not too important.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
