Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO documents

Michael Sondow (msondow@iciiu.org)
Sat, 19 Dec 1998 17:16:50 -0500


William X. Walsh a écrit:

> Remember, ICANN did NOT start this DNSO process. This process was started by a
> small narrowly defined group of stakeholders.

ICANN did start the DNSO process, by creating a DNSO in its bylaws.

The Barcelona/Monterrey DNSO is not a narrowly defined group of
stakeholders, as is clear from the list of participants. There were
omissions, but this is not so much the fault of the organizers. For
example, I was present and am a small part of its process. However, the
research networks weren't present and so are not yet included. I am not
allowed to speak for them. That's right and proper, otherwise the DNSO
would be perpetrating the same mistake (or ruse) that the ICANN interim
Board is: claiming that people who are not, themselves, public sector
end-users represent them.
>
> My question is why do they have the right to do so, and the ORSC does not?

Everyone has the "right" to claim anything they want. And certainly the
registration of a domain name, or the creation of a website, means very
little.

OTOH, hard work in contacting and negotiating with varied interests does
mean something, and the DNSO.ORG has been doing this. If the ORSC does
the same, perhaps that's all to the good. Then maybe all the little
DNSOs can come together. But starting opposing DNSOs with different
memberships isn't productive otherwise.

I really don't feel that the limitation of the participants list, which
hasn't been used for any policy-making or even serious discussion, to
individuals who were present at a meeting warrants such drastic and
divisive tactics as proliferating DNSO organizations. With this
exception: that of course the list manager has no right to add people to
the participants list who haven't participated, not even Jon Postel's
lawyer. That warranted a strong protest.

But it's being used as an excuse for starting competing DNSOs. That's
just profiteering. The ORSC did the same with the NewCo proposals:
submitting bylaws as an incorporated NewCo to compete with the IANA's,
while copying their bylaws. This sitting around until others have done
the hard work and then using it for your own benefit doesn't smell very
good.

I can see that from your viewpoint, you feel excluded. But actually
that's not the case. The organizers of the DNSO just made a mistake:
they started too many mailing lists. I'm sure they're sorry they ever
thought of having a separate list for each activity. We can all learn a
lesson from this error. But it isn't sufficient reason for dividing the
DNS interests more than they already are. It's only a good reason for
inactivating the participants list and getting the listserve moved out
of the ITU.

> I say let there be two, and lets see which one can fulfill the mandate to be
> open and inclusive and have substantive representation of the broadest base of
> stakeholders.

People aren't going to go to meetings every week. There are already too
many organizations with overlapping agendas and conflicting meeting
schedules. I don't want to have to be forced to choose between DNSO.ORG
and DNSO.NET. I can't go to all those meetings, and I haven't the time
to work on any more applications and bylaws. Nobody has.

So those, like the European and So. American NICs, telcos, trademark
interests, and others who are already committed to DNSO.ORG probably
won't get involved with DNSO.NET. It will end up an organization of root
servers, that is, a constitutency of the ICANN's DNSO. Better, I
believe, than trying to compete with the existing DNSO would be to throw
your weight around a little more in it and get what you want.

> If this can be done, then it is very likely that the ICANN will reject both
> applications, and send both DNSOs back to the table with a mandate to develop
> consensus. I think that this is the only way this CORE/PAB DNSO is going to
> make substantive changes that will make them representative of all the
> stakeholder interests.

If that's the outcome, maybe it's alright. But it's a dangerous game,
when there's so little consensus already. Making things more difficult
for ICANN and the USG isn't helping matters. But maybe you're right in
this. I hope so. And I hope I'll be permitted to be active, as much as
time allows, in all groups. I don't want to have to choose between
allies. I'm tired of fighting with people.

*
============================================================ xxx
International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) xxxxx
http://www.iciiu.org iciiu@iciiu.org xxxxxxx
============================================================ |
^^^