Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

["David W. Maher" <dwmaher@ibm.net>]

Stef:
	I applaud your attempt to cut thru the Balkan mess, but I am puzzled as to
how the various principalities can agree on the composition of a Fair
Hearing Panel. In a sense, all the efforts of the past two or three years
has been to get people to agree on a system of trusted representatives who
could decide what to do about the DNS. We know what a mess this has turned
into. How do we now pick the FHP? 
 David

At 12:49 AM 12/3/98 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>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
>
>