>At 3/15/02 03:25 PM, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>At 01:05 PM 3/15/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >What's people's take on the new "at large" >> >positions at ICANN? Are they real or >> >>Memorex. > > >Agreed. > >It reminds me of all of the time we >wasted trying to build a fair DNSO:
or IDNO, for that matter. -- ken > >Jay. > > >At 2/5/99 09:51 PM, Jay Fenello wrote: > >>February 5, 1999 >> >>Memorandum for the ICANN Board and the Internet/DNS Community >> >>On behalf of the undersigned, ORSC, AIP, and NSI respectfully submit the >>attached draft proposal for the establishment of a Domain Name Supporting >>Organization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >>(ICANN). >> >>This draft (the "Paris Draft") was developed during a two-day session >>involving participants from a wide range of regions and perspectives on >>the DNSO formation process, including representatives of registries that >>account for the vast majority of current registrations in the domain name >>system and that service registrants in every region of the world. That >>session began by comparing all the outstanding drafts from every source >>(including, of course, many parties who were not at this meeting) and >>discussing in detail the many good ideas contained in various drafts and >>the significance of the differences between them. Subsequent discussions >>with others who were not at the meeting have led to constructive plans for >>exploring further refinements and seeking further endorsements. >> >>We have tried our best to incorporate into a coherent document the best >>views of all who favor an open, transparent, bottom up process for the >>evolution of policies and industry standards applicable to the DNS. We >>have sought a structure that will ensure stability, encourage flexible >>change over time, allow participation by all parties impacted by the >>policy development process, and assure widespread implementation of the >>new policies that develop through that process. We solicit and welcome any >>and all comments and suggestions. >> >>We have sought in this draft proposal to accomplish the goals established >>by ICANN's Articles and ByLaws, as initially articulated by the US >>Government's White Paper and thereafter developed in the course of >>extensive discussions among diverse stakeholders. The draft contemplates >>that a new DNSO structure would be established by means of an amendment to >>ICANN's ByLaws, to function as a distinct but integrated part of the ICANN >>process. Integration of the DNSO into ICANN both simplifies the >>organizational questions (avoiding the need for a separate board and >>corporate officers and staff, fund collection and additional fiscal >>controls) and assures that DNSO will function to serve ICANN's goals and >>will comply with ICANN's Articles and ByLaws. This approach also allows >>more extensive and specific discussion of the particular processes by >>which appropriate expertise and the perspectives of impacted parties may >>be brought to bear on these complex and dynamic issues. >> >>The draft provides for an open DNSO membership that may self-organize into >>various constituencies, which may be adjusted from time to time. The >>constituencies would select a regionally diverse Names Council, the role >>of which will be to facilitate and recognize the emergence of consensus >>among the membership as a whole (acting through both a General Assembly >>and various Research Committees established to study and report on >>specific issues). The draft intentionally rejects a "representational" >>model that would empower a small group of Name Council members to adopt or >>reject recommendations to be forwarded to ICANN. Instead, it seeks to >>assure true, bottom up and widespread consensus >> >>(1) by calling for expert and diverse participation in production of reports, >>(2) by submitting reports to the General Assembly for comment and >>ratification, >>(3) by allowing any adversely impacted constituencies to request fair >>hearings, and >>(4) by requiring that a full report of the policy research and development >>process (not just the report of a majority vote of a top down governing >>body) be forward to the ICANN Board for its review once the Names Council >>judges that general consensus has been achieved. >> >>The draft further seeks to assure the enforceability of policies >>ultimately adopted by ICANN and to encourage those who must implement any >>policies to enter into contractual relationships with ICANN that will make >>that result achievable. In particular, it lays the groundwork for >>contracts between ICANN and registries that could require the registries, >>who must implement most policies and flow them down to registrars and >>registrants, to implement policies with which they might disagree -- >>provided such policies have been accepted and will be implemented by most >>other registries. The mechanism designed to achieve this result, the >>"implementation preview", allows a mechanism that would prevent any small >>group of registries that have entered into a contract with ICANN from >>vetoing or ignoring the consensus policies DNSO and ICANN develop. It is >>designed to encourage all registries to enter into contracts with ICANN, >>in order to participate in the implementation preview process. This >>process applies only to policies the registries must implement (e.g., >>those that alter their business operations or contractual relationships >>with third parties) and does not apply to other policies that do not >>require registry implementation (including, as a key example, ICANN's >>decision to add additional TLDs to its authoritative root server). In >>short, by preventing the adoption of futile policies that cannot be >>enforced by means of contracts between ICANN and a wide range of >>registries, and by giving registries an incentive to participate in the >>ICANN process, the draft proposal is intended to make ICANN's policy >>development effective. >> >>Any proposal of this type must seek a balance between fairness and >>closure, between openness and efficiency, between analytical expertise and >>politics, between structure and flexibility, and between simplicity and >>the need to assure participants that they will have an appropriate voice >>and vote. The draft seeks to encourage participation by providing that all >>processes of the DNSO should be conducted online, to the maximum extent >>feasible, so as to avoid capture by those who can afford to attend in >>person meetings. It allows detailed study of complex issues by experts, >>but also requires a broad-based and open membership to accept the results >>of those studies. It requires constituencies to demonstrate substantial >>support among the membership as a condition to selection of the Name >>Council membership, but it allows new constituencies to form over time, >>assures disaffected parties an opportunity to present their views to >>neutral fact finders, and submits any final recommendations to appropriate >>review by all interested parties and those who must implement the results. >>It prevents capture by prohibiting the formation of constituencies based >>on religious, governmental, geographic or corporate affiliation. But it >>seeks to assure both functional and geographic diversity within >>constituencies, on research committees and on the administrative Names >>Council, whose job it will be to frame issues, initiate focused >>proceedings, and recognize the emergence of sufficient likelihood of >>consensus so as to submit final proposals to the DNSO General Assembly and >>ultimately to the ICANN Board. >> >>We will continue to solicit comments and suggestions (and endorsements) -- >>and we have no doubt the draft is still capable of improvement. But we >>believe that the attached Paris Draft is in its current form a vehicle >>that might lead to trust -- one more step down the road towards even more >>constructive engagement by all concerned with the substantive technical >>and coordination issues that ICANN was established to address. The spirit >>and hope of this draft is that the necessary trust will come not from >>compromise resolution of contending claims for a limited number of seats >>on a board that directly adopts policies by majority vote but, rather, >>from transparent procedural provisions that allow presentation of all >>viewpoints, reward wide participation in meaningful deliberation, and >>encourage broad implementation of measures that have real consensus support. >> >>In light of the brief time between the final formulation of this draft and >>the required submission date, we have not yet been able to contact all the >>parties we expect shortly to submit endorsements. We will of course post >>this draft publicly and update that posting to reflect additional >>endorsements as they arrive. We will also contact others who may submit >>drafts and seek to continue an open, constructive dialogue with all >>concerned parties, aiming towards the goal of either a unified submission >>before the scheduled ICANN Board meeting or an even more clear delineation >>of any remaining issues. >> >>Comments and suggestions should be sent to: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Jay Fenello, ORSC >> Paris Meeting Participant >> >> >>Submitting Organizations: >> >> Einar Stefferud, >> Chair, ORSC >> Open Root Server Confederation >> >> Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP >> Executive Director, AIP >> Association of Internet Professionals >> >> Donald N. Telage >> Senior VP, NSI >> Network Solutions, Inc. >> >> >>Attendees of the Paris Meeting >> >> Antony Van Couvering >> Bernard Turcotte >> David Johnson >> Don Tellage >> Elisabeth Porteneuve >> Fay Howard >> Jay Fenello >> Kilnam Chon >> Oscar Robles-Garay >> Roberto Guitano >> >> >>Endorsing Registries >> >> .COM, .NET, .ORG (NSI) >> .BI (Burundi) >> .BR (Brazil) >> .CD (Congo Democratic Republic) >> .CG (Republic of Congo) >> .DO (Dominican Republic) >> .GF (French Guyana) >> .GG (Guernsey) >> .GP (Guadeloupe) >> .GS (South Georgia) >> .JE (Jersey) >> .KZ (Kazakhstan) >> .LC (Saint Lucia) >> .MS (Montserrat) >> .MX (Mexico) >> .NU (Niue) >> .PN (Pitcairn) >> .PH (Philippines) >> .RW (Rwanda) >> .TC (Turk and Caicos) >> .TF (French Southern Territories) >> .TT (Trinidad and Tobago) >> .VE (Venezuela) >> .VG (British Virgin Islands) >> >> >>Additional Endorsing Parties >> >> DNRC >> DSo Internet Services >> ICIIU >> Image Online Design, Inc >> ISP/C >> >> >>=============================================================== >> >> >>Paris Draft >>February 4, 1999 >> >><snip> > > >+++ > >Jay Fenello, Internet Coaching >http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765 >http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support >http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World >--------------------------------------------------------- >"The first step is to penetrate the clouds of deceit >and distortion and learn the truth about the world, then >to organize and act to change it. That's never been >impossible and never been easy." -- Noam Chomsky
