Richard and all,
Interesting observations here Richard. We [INEGroup] share some of
them
with you and some with Jay as well. However there are some differences
that we saw as significant that were not allowed to surface in
Singapore that concerns us greatly. (See below for more comments)...
Richard Lindsay wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> Just thought I would throw in a few comments from Asia
> particularly concerning the DNSO.
>
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> > The DNSO.
> >
> > On Tuesday, I attended the DNSO formation meeting.
>
> Actually the APTLD group discussed this on Monday, as
> they were trying to increase awareness in Asia, and to see
> if there was any degree of consensus on what ccTLD managers
> had to say about the DNSO. The overall consensus (IMHO)
> was that the process was very confusing, and my impression
> was that many attendees really didn't understand what
> was happening (or why!) The APTLD members agreed to
> not have a position basically.
The fact that many of the participants were greatly confused is
significant to this process. And it is and has been endemic to the
ICANN process from the beginning. Lack of awareness, and getting
the word out from within ICANN has indeed been part of the
communication problem to the stakeholders leading to much confusion.
Much improvement is needed on the part of the ICANN in this regard,
was what our [INEGroup], representative, Brian Hollingsworth has
reported back to us from Singapore.
>
>
> > The morning started out as usual, with both the BMW
> > and the Paris draft supporters extolling the virtues
> > of their respective drafts.
> >
> > The afternoon session had CENTR once again presenting
> > a compromise draft, one that most in attendance could
> > support at some level.
>
> <some comments deleted>
>
> My impression of the afternoon DNSO meeting was that
> the CENTR presented compromise had a great deal of
> middle ground - however, there were some issues that
> did not have complete consensus (and it was clear that
> there would be none.) Basically everyone agreed to
> disagree on certain points, and to present these disagreements
> to the ICANN board as is, and to elicit comments from the
> board.
However the ICANN board made a decision without stakeholder
approval by the way on a DNSO anyway. Very inappropriate at
best, and in stark contrast to the White Paper requirnments.
>
>
> > Things really got interesting the next day at the open
> > ICANN Board meeting. What started out as a presentation
> > of the CENTR compromise proposal, quickly devolved into
> > an attempt to accept the BMW draft as the basis for the
> > DNSO. This became clear upon comments made by ICANN Board
> > member Hans Kraaijenbrink, who upon further questions from
> > Fay Howard of CENTR, revealed his affiliation to BMW
> > supporters.
>
> I may have dozed off, but I didn't get the impression that
> the compromise turned into any attempt to favor the BMW
> draft.
This was our impression as well. Brian reported to us that
it seemed pretty clear that the ICANN and those that supported
the DNSO.ORG bunch along with the BMW draft, had the fix in
as was enumerated on the DNSO discuss list on many occasions.
Indeed from the comments that ICANN solicited, they obviously did not
head much from those comments in the DNSO decision.
> Although Hans Kraaijenbrink did indeed little to hide
> his preferences, I did not get the impression that the other
> board members had any firm opinions. I was pleased that
> Esther at least tried to get the board to have some open
> discussion (in particular with regard to constituencies).
> Although the board "public discussion" of DNSO proposal differences
> never fully materialized, at least they were presented;
> and I have to say Esther did try.
Well when you by design limit the time to 1/2 hour as well
as not put in a position that the decision be made there in Singapore
where few stakeholders could participate face to face, you by
design set up a situation where this sort of thing can and did occur.
>
>
> > By the end of the day, few knew where the board was
> > going, and we left the fate of the DNSO in their hands
> > to be decided in their closed board meeting scheduled for
> > the next day.
>
> Indeed this part was a little confusing, although it negated
> the need to have yet another DNSO meeting...
And a dam shame as well...
>
>
> > Much to my surprise, the board voted to adopt a DNSO
> > very much like the CENTR proposal, *with* a non-commercial
> > domain name constituency. IMHO, this was a major victory
> > that revealed that this board could make difficult decisions,
> > and that it could be influenced by public opinion and
> > scrutiny.
>
> Also, the board supported constiencies that the BMW drafters
> specifically opposed (ie separate ccTLD and gTLD constituencies.)
> Since this vote was unanimous (so we are told) this must mean
> that some of the board members changed their minds as well :-)
>
> I think this process went a long way to give the ICANN board
> at least some degree of legitimacy.
We [INEGroup] would strongly disagree with this point.
> While there is still
> quite a bit of work to be done, I am glad there is at least
> some progress, and forward movement, in a relatively open
> environment. Let's see what happens now!
We [INEGroup] along with many others believe that a huge
step backwards was taken in SIngapore that will lead
to eventual legal action at some point.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
> --
> _/_/_/"The Total Internet Infrastructure Company"
>
> _/_/_/interQ Incorporated
> _/_/_/System Division
> _/_/_/Director and General Manager
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
>
> _/_/_/Shibuya Infoss Tower 10F,
> _/_/_/20-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku Tokyo, (150-0031) Japan
> _/_/_/TELEPHONE: 81-3-5456-2687
> _/_/_/FACSIMILE: 81-3-5456-2556
> _/_/_/E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _/_/_/HOME PAGE: http://www.interq.ad.jp
>
> *****"Internet for Everyone!"*****
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup
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
