Not only are issues of substance separating the Paris proposal from the
dnso.org proposal, but the style of the drafts (IMHO) is preventing even
an attempt at merging them. As a recent post from Kent Crispin made
clear, the dnso.org draft is "explicitly high level," while the Paris
proposal provides more detailed bylaws. This difference is not simply
stylistic; it represents a fundamental difference of opinion about the
level of detail needed by the ICANN Board and the internet community to
judge the proposals on their merits.
I won't speak for the others who have had a hand in drafting the Paris
proposal, but for my own part, I thought it vitally important to explain
to all of you, as well as the ICANN Board, how decisions would be made,
how the internet community would have input into those decisions, and
what policy recommendations to the Board would look like. And I thought
it important to do this both at a high level and at a detail level. You
ought to be able to look at the Paris proposal and know how -- exactly
how -- the policy recommendation process will work each time. There's
little guess work, and nothing to take on faith.
This level of detail accomplishes at least two goals. First, it brings
predictability to a brand new process. For each issue to be addressed,
you'll know how to participate, when to participate, and how to provide
your comments. Second, it doesn't require you to put your trust in a body
(the Names Council) that has not yet been elected and has no track
record. If the bylaws ensure an adequate opportunity for input, then it
shouldn't matter who assumes the steering committee roles on the Names
Council.
That's a short version of why the Paris proposal is as detailed as it is.
I think it's the better approach. But I'm interested in opening a
discussion on whether the rest of this group agrees, and if not, what you
think would be better.
-- Bret
