RE: My DNSO review comment (Re: [ga] DNSO Review Committee)

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@dnso.org>]

Thanks to Roberto and Harald for starting a debate, and to all others for
their comments.

I agree only in part with Harald.
Let me explain. There are polarizations, yes, indeed.

But I see other polarizations, very important ones, accrossing
Constituencies, the priorities of work  -- they are not the same for those willing
to create new gTLDs and those willing the internationalisation of
domain names (therefore update of all impacted applications such as e-mail
for example). Yes, the second is much more difficult and demands
an international collaboration, but it is THE priority for non ASCII world,
the 158,000 AtLarge membership indicates 60% of members from the non ASCII world.

I would be more positive for the DNSO, but it needs a lot of improvements,
IMHO it may be achieved.

- The DNSO is quite different from other SO's. 
  At the time of their setup both ASO and PSO are associations of existing,
  structured and financed organizations. The establishement of the DNSO was
  at the same time a twofold demand of simultaneous creation from scratch of its
  7 Constituencies, NC, GA, Secretariat as well as their corresponding
  financial structures, and of establishing working procedures.
  
- The White Paper set up the initial program for ICANN, but in fact for the DNSO,
  and from the major US perspective: NSI monopoly managing international gTLDs,
  Intellectual Property concerns and definition of UDRP, opening new gTLD.
  The ccTLD issue is hardly listed (but IMHO an order of magnitude more difficult
  that the old NSI problem), the internationalisation of domain names
  (multilingual caracters) not existing. The DNSO and ICANN tackled to the urgent
  matters, the NSI functions has been splitted, UDRP defined.
  The issue of opening of new gTLDs leaved an unrest, but the awarness of
  its impact increased. IMHO each and everybody understood that new gTLDs
  will bring enormous financial ressources to registries and registrars,
  and that the gap between those who run fast and in English and those
  who need more time will enlarge. Unavoidable or not, I don't know.
  The world ruled by fast open competition compensated by charity speaking on
  behalf of abandoned is not the same as the world proactively taking
  into account larger interests and slowing down.

- The excellent ICANN rule of geographic diversity obliged people to work
  accross the borders and have more open perspectives. The number of world maps
  put on offices' walls increased dramatically.
  The non English speakers became familiar with utmostly procedural approach
  used in the anglo-american system. The English speaking businessmen understood
  they may make money from international domain names.
  Superb opportunities are facing us.

- The "Paris Draft" (January 1999) provides for a mathematical beauty
  -- 5% of GA may create a constituency, but this 5% shall be maintained 
  over time, i.e. sometimes a constituency shall disappear. Like all 
  mathematical beauties, it needs an implementation study, and even 18 months later
  I still do not know how to do it.
  (speaking in my quality of mathematician and host to "Paris Draft" group)

Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html