You may have been invited to join the drafting team, because you
participated in the Monterrey meeting. Michael Hetzler, on the other hand,
has never attended an open DNSO.org meeting and is unknown to the DNSO.org
participants. Nevertheless, he is on the drafting team and asserting himself
in an aggressive manner during the drafting team teleconferences. How has
this happened? How has it come about that a person who has never attended a
DNSO.org meeting sits on the team deciding which proposals will be included
in the next draft of the DNSO.org application? You pretend that this is
democratic? Where do you come from, Stalinist Russia or Pinochet's Chile?
> Second, if INTA had merely submitted a proposal to ICANN, I believe that
> the proposal would have been criticized for not representing the views of a
> consensus of stakeholders, and you and others would have accused INTA of
> attempting to subvert the consensus process.
Not at all. Of course it would have been criticised for being
anti-democratic, because it is. But no one would have thought to deny you
the right to submit it.
Since you knew it would be rejected for its anti-democratic clauses, you
thought to sneak it under the guise of the DNSO.org, without the purview of
the participants, in order to trick people into either not reading it and
trusting to whatever good reputation the DNSO.org might have, or their being
presented with a fait accompli where your proposals were already
incorporated into the DNSO.org application without even being submitted for
the membership's debate and vote. And in truth, it remains yet to be seen
whether or not you will get away with this, since the INTA actually has been
incorporated into the a DNSO.org draft that may be presented to the
membership, and it hasn't yet been made to clear to the participants how
that draft will be presented. You have done your work of subversion rather
well, and may yet succeed, if I and the few others who are attentive and not
naive relax our vigil of your activites.
> Instead, INTA has presented
> its proposal to the world, as have several other entities other than
> dnso.org (and just as ORSC, BWG, Ms. Hauben and of course, INEG) presented
> alternate ICANN proposals.
>
> Is there someone on the dnso or ifwp lists who does not have access to the
> INTA proposal and does not have these forums to present their opposing views?
As you know full well, not many people read the proposals on the Web
carefully. They rely more often than not on others to tell them what's in
them. Furthermore, these lists are not yet a useful mechanism for debate
among numerous parties and consensus. Which is why we continue to have
meetings. So please don't pretend that by allowing the INTA proposal to be
published on the Web you have followed an irreproachable procedure. By
waiting until the Monterrey meeting was over to present it, and by
convincing people on the drafting committee to include it in a draft that is
not identified clearly as an alternative, non-consensus proposal, you have
operated in a dishonest fashion.
> In an enviroment where people on this list have referred to trademark
> interests as white slavers and I imagine INTA is under no illusions that it
> will "usurp" the dnso.org process.
You say this. But what you do turns the lie.
> After all, Ms. Dyson's article on the Grateful Dead model of intellectual
> property management proves that she will never sell out the Internet to
> trademark interests.
That's a totally unwarranted assumption. That article is three years old,
isn't it? From a time far removed from when she was even considered for the
job of ICANN Chairman. Judging by what Ms. Dyson has posted to these lists
and by her not altogether forthright approach to meetings and processes, I
would say that we have no assurances whatsoever what Ms. Dyson will or will
not accept.
And, let's not forget, Ms. Dyson isn't the ICANN. There is a Board and a
President, of whom we know virtually nothing regarding their true feelings
about who should control the DNS and for what purposes. It is these very
decisions, these first ones like the DNSO application, that will give us the
first real indications of the true nature of this ICANN Board. So we can not
yet expect anything of the ICANN Board. Unless you have some personal
knowledge of their predilections unshared by the rest of us.