I believe that this view squares with Michael's comments here.
+++++++++++++++++++++
>From Michael Sondow's message Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:40:24 -0500:
}
}Milton Mueller:
}
}> No, what's really going on here is that the dnso.org is
}> attempting to cut a deal with the trademark interests.
}
}Milton-
}
}The other assertions you made in your posting may be true; I have no
}information one way or the other. But that the dnso.org per se is cutting
}deals can't be true, since the vast majority of the participants in the
}dnso.org have not been consulted. These people, who met in Barcelona and
}Monterrey, are subscribed to the participants@dnso.org list, but do not
}for the most part read the discuss@dnso.org list or the IFWP list. Since
}all the discussion about trademarks and membership are taking place on
}those two lists, the dnso.org participants are not privy to what's going
}on.
}
++++++++++++++++++++
I know clearly from the Monterey DNSO.ORG meeting (in which I
participated on behalf of ORSC) that ICANN held a private, "not for
attribution" meeting with selected DNSO.ORG organizers in Boston where
it was clear that the DNSO.ORG organizers were given inside
information on how to shape their DNSO application to be more easily
accepted by ICANN. This same information was not presented to the
Boston ICANN Open Meeting the very next day, and no mention was ever
made in public concerning any such meeting having occurred. At
Monterey, a great deal of effert went into incorporating ICANN desires
into the draft application to be submitted to ICANN.
Now then, I suspect that ICC and INTA and other organizers of the so
called January DNSO.ORG meeting, in proceeding in their normal
"business as usual" mode of using closed meetings without public
exposure, have been proceeding to work on cutting a deal with ICANN
and imposing themselves on the DNSO.ORG process. For example, an INTA
member states that INTA has not shared its DNSO draft bylaws, or its
plans for the DNSO.ORG meeting, with INTA members.
The January 22nd meeting is sponsored by and controlled by ICC and
INTA and others. DNSO.ORG participants have actually been left pretty
much in the dark. As I am on the <participants@dnso.org> list by
virtue of attending the Monterey meeting, I will vouch for the lack of
proper timely information being given to DNSO.ORG about the date and
place of the ICC/INTA meeting. The agenda still remains obscure, and
some participants still need to make international travel plans to
attend.
>From a meta level, what I think has happened here, is that DNSO.ORG,
to its great credit, has actually become much more open than it
started out to be, and it is no longer possible to keep its dealings
private because of this openness. DNSO.ORG has at least partially
converted to an open mode of operation.
We should give credit where credit is due!
So, somehow, some close hold "deal" information has leaked and the
ICC/INTA cat is out of the bag. Or the whole rumor is simply false.
But has been gaining currency as it circulated via private channels.
We do not know anything for certain about that has happened, and it
probably never needs to be known for certain, as long as the reported
rumor can be made to be false. It can be made to be false if it is in
fact false, and denied as such. OR if it is true and denied as such,
AND never comes to pass!
I don't think we care which of these is the truth. At least, I don't!
What we do want is for this kind of thing to become understood to be a
big "NO-NO" in the process of resolving the DNS MESS with a strong and
broad consensus. And we (outside the insider's club) want the rumored
plan to fail, if it is real. We want genuine efforts to gain
consensus in place of what appear to be endless power grabs by one or
another group of players.
The new meta reality of all this is that private closed deal cutting
does not work in the Internet, and will only lead to divisive results
because it diminishes mutual trust every time it is exposed, and in
the Internet, you can bet that such things will will be exposed!
Information in the Internet is much too mobile and slippery to be
contained.
The history of the DNS MESS is clear on this score. Time after time,
such deals have been exposed, and exposure has broken the deals and
discredited the perpetrators. It is just not a useful or proper way
to do business in the Internet, when broad consensus is required.
So, lets just accept the denials, and then watch the results to be
sure that our acceptance of the denials is not just the result of
tricky wording and foolish trust of the untrustworthy.
The acid test will be whether the rumor turns into a fait accompli in
due course. If it turns out that such a deal has been cut, I believe
it is now going to be extremely difficult to make it stick!
If the rumored deal does actually come to be, we will certainly know a
lot more about the trustworthyness of ICANN and INTA, et al... And,
it should count heavily in the NTIA evaluations of whether ICANN has
matured well enough into a trustworthy reliable broadly based
consensus organization to be trusted with those assets (whatever they
might be) that the USGovt is trying to hand over to some properly
responsible organization.
Just in case no one has noticed, THIS IS A TEST OF OUR TRUST!
Trust of ICANN, Trust of DNSO.ORG, Trust of INTA, and Trust of NTIA.
One Word to the Wise is Generally Sufficient;-)...
Talking to the unwise is a different story.
Cheers...\Stef