Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

Hello William -- Your line of argument is exactly why we need to hold
some "Fair Hearing Panels" to faaairly get the facts on the table for
a fair review and fair analysis!

The other way to settle it all is to avoid a fair hearing frontal
attack, and continue to wage guerilla war over the controversy, and
eventually hand the whole question over to the courts for prolonged
legal warfare.  I do not see why anyone wants to go there!

I very much prefer, and very much advocate, that we who are so very
concerned about all this, sit down together and sort it out ourselves
and put it behind us.  I don't even want to wait for ICANN to gigure
out that open fair hearinggs on this issue might be a good idea.  So
far, ICANN has solidly resisted any suggestion that Fair Hearing
Panels might be useful for anything.  So, why should we wait for ICANN
to do anything for us, in their secretive behind the curtains mode.


Unless perhaps you think that you have enough influence with ICANN to
get your way in over the other conflicting claimants.  This of course
is just a return to zero-sum game thinking, where-in, the game is to
just knock the other guys out of the game and win all the marbles.

Actually, I do not beleive you mean this, but I do want to call out
that your comments sure sound like you do;-)...

I do not come into this with any preconceived notions, other than that
there must be a fair way to hear all sides and make rational and fair
settlements of the existing and new potential conflicts.

There is no need for this DNS TLD MESS to remain the first Balkans of
Cyberspace, unless we want it to be so.  It is our choice to make.

Your argument says you want it to remain the Balkans of CyberSpace.

My argument says lets not go there!  
Lets just find a fair settlement instead!
Cheers...\Stef



>From William X. Walsh's message Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:42:14 -0800 (PST):
}
}On 02-Dec-98 Michael Sondow wrote:
}> Sounds good to me. Action is what's needed, as Stef says, and the way o=
}f
}> going about it that he suggests here sounds right. Stef could have
}> brought this proposal directly to the ICANN, and by bringing it to the
}> DNSO first he's given the DNSO the chance to assert some authority
}> over this issue. IMHO, the DNSO should grab at this opportunity and giv=
}e
}> Stef all the cooperation it can.
}>=20
}>=20
}> Einar Stefferud a =E9crit:
}>>=20
}>> It seems to me, given the content and tone of the NTIA "Cooperative
}>> agreement with ICANN" that it is time for ORSC and DNSO.ORG to put
}>> together a serious proposal to NTIA/ICANN to convene a Fair Hearing
}>> Panel to take on the task of sorting out the facts relating to the
}>> backlog of conflicting TLD registry claims.
}
}This assumption that those who have, essentially, laid renegade claims to
}TLD's with no basis for believing they would ever be added to the roots, 
}should have some prior claim and be considered a "backlog" for purposes of 
}processing new gTLD applications requires extensive discussion in itself 
}before even considered such a proposal.
}
}I am sure I am not alone in a basic feeling that these people/organizations
}should probably not have any higher standing in consideration for new gTLD
}registries.  Their applications should be considered alongside any others
}applying for new or different gTLDs.  Those who choose to NOT setup a
}"renegade" gTLD or root server network and instead to work within the system
}for change should NOT be penalized and placed at the end of the queue.
}
}This would be patently unfair.
}
}-----------------------------------------------------------------
}William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
}Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
}william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
}+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
}-----------------------------------------------------------------
}Date: 02-Dec-98 / Time: 11:37:18