Good point Michael ;-)
When I was invited to the first ICC/ITAA teleconf, I made very clear that we
all indeed thought the TM interests are cirtical to any wroking DNSO, and
thereore, to any successful DNSo application, and if in their view it was
needed to plan anohter meeting to be held in Jnauary in the US, it was OK by
me (and I suspected to most other DNSO participants) provided that:tjis did
not amount to a delay in submitting the application.
In practical terms, imt menas that:
* Most real work has to be done before that meeting. This implies that
*each party submits what they expect form the DNSO, what are the critical
issues to them and what they can't accept form the current proposal (and any
future revision).
Oting out of meetings cannot be a wiining strategy anyomore. Planing new
meetings because some participants decided to opt out of previous meeting can
neither. Nor attending meetings with the only meessage that new meetings are
needed because we don't have "sufficient consensus".
Other people, like Theresa, were making similar points.
This menas that we all, the DNSO participnats and the "new parties" coming
form the ICC/ITAA cicrlce have to do serious homework, and seriously discuss
the major disaggreentns, boht "bilateraly" and among all of us.
Then the Waashington meeting comes for refinements, agreeemtns, compromisdes.
That are always easier in face-to-face meetings than in e-mail lists.
I, for one, ASTRONGLY advoczte to submit the largest-shared DNSO application
form we could have before February 5. We cannot afford to let ICANN hold its
first meeting without such application on the table. That simple.
What really worries me, Michael, is that most parties seem to ignore the time
factor. Our drafting team has produced a post-Monterrey draft, as promised.
INTA has also provided their own bylaws, as a result of thir internal
disucssions. And have commneted on our draft. You have also done so, Michael.
But nobody else. I know that some participants have reservations or overt
disagreemnts with some parts of the current draft. But nothing has hit the
list so far (not my mailbox, to be clear). From al those participating in the
ICC+ telecnfs, only INTA, as said, has startted the real work *in public*. NSI
has also promised comments on both our and INTA's draft.
If we don't convince everyone to speak up now, we won't be able to achieve
significant work prior to the Washington memeting. So it will be useless. And
then each one will have to face the question: do we, and who , submit an
application ?
My answer will be YES. I hope that nearly all of us, if not all will sign it.
I hope that some of those not partiicpating in the process so far will also
sign in. But I will strngly oppose delaying things just because some people
decided not to participate, not to seak up, not do do his homework.
This is my personal position, at least.
Amadeu
^^^