(I concur with the goal of lightness in organizational weight.)
The benefit of taking the copy-and-modify approach you suggest is that it
has very, very strong compatibility with ICANN and, therefore, the ultimate
in defensibility. Any challenge to the DNSO's concepts and organizations
necessarily accrue equally to ICANN itself. Hence it is unlikely that
ICANN could fault the DNSO's concepts or organization.
The question is what downsides apply?
I believe that all the downsides are inherent in the entire ICANN-based
approach, whatever those downside might be. Since we all are already stuck
with whatever those downsides are, there is no INCREMENTAL detriment to
having the DNSO copy them. To the extent that there might be benefit in
seeking conceptual or organizational diversity (different structure,
different venue of incorporation, etc.) those benefits are currently
hypothetical.
The nice thing about tight deadlines is that they create strong focus.
Consequently, hypothetical benefits look less interesting. Expedience
looks more interesting.
At 10:25 AM 12/22/98 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Well, as I have observed elsewhere, it is a generally bad negotiationg
>strategy to first jump in bed, and then argue about who is going to be
>on top.
This suggests that one should negotiate all the details about the sexual
relationship before agreeing to have sex. Although a facinating idea, this
attitude certainly does make clear a fundamental, philosophical difference
in approaching business (and other) relationships. I'm wondering how often
anyone does specify ALL the detail before taking ANY action, as this image
suggests?
>I do not see any value in giving ICANN all the choices.
Copying a reasonable structure does not carry an implication of
decision-making dependence.
>But, it is clear to me that if you want to negotiate, you have to
>first establish that you have the ability to withhold concurrence with
>offers from the other party. If not, then you are reduced to being an
>order taker, and negotiation does not exist.
The idea that one should make a point of displaying token resistance, to
establish independence, is not uncommon in negotiating, but seems just a
bit silly and cumbersome in the midst of this serious topic.
Would it not be more productive to agree to what is reasonable and save the
resistance for things that legitimately are problematic?
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA