Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 12:01:11AM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> 
> One way to do this is for each conflicting constituency to pick one
> panel member, and let the selected members either pick one of the
> panel's members to serve as Chair if the number of members is odd, or
> pick an outside person if the number is even.  

This begs the question.  The whole problem here, from my point of 
view, is that the "constituencies" on one side are the handful of 
registries that make claims to the root, and the constituencies on 
the other side are *everybody else*.

For example, I am a constituency.  I have no claim on the root.  I 
am not a registrar or a registry or an ISP or IANA or ICANN.  
Perhaps I best represent PAB.  Therefore, I should be on this panel.  
Or I might represent a certain class of Internet Users, who feel it 
would be patently unfair to give away franchises to the root zone 
without use of an allocation procedure that is agreed to by the 
community.  Everybody who thinks that IODesign, Iperdome and others 
are simply opportunistic gold diggers seeking an unfair advantage 
should have a say on that panel.

> Then, the Chair only votes when the others vote a tie.
> 
> I will note that this is no wild eyed new invention, as it is quite
> standard for most Conflict Resolution Systems.  I think the legal
> profession refers to this as an "ADR".  Often this is done with each
> of two parties picking one member each and those two then picking a
> third.  I believe this is an ancient and well polished procedure and
> process.

As I indicated, this is simply not a case of two parties contending.  
There are literally hundreds of constituencies that could make a 
legitimate claim as needing representation on this FHP.

In any case, I think using FHPs for this is quite premature.  The new
process for adding new gTLDs is something that is yet to be decided
-- the old process for adding new gTLDs *was* decided -- that was the
MoU, it was contested in a court of law, and it held.  However, the
USG has interferred with that process to the extent that we need a new
process.  When we have that process, then we can start thinking 
about adding new gTLDs.

> Do we need to invent something else?  
> Do we want to resolve the conflicts, or not.
> If we do not want resolution, lets just get back to fighting.
> 
> Now, the only reason I can think of for our DNS community not having
> done this sooner, is that too many conflicting parties have believed
> that they could win all the marbles if they would just bear down and
> knock off all their opponents.  And as long as any party really
> believes that this is their best option, they will fight on and on and
> on.  

It has nothing to do with that.  The only players trying to get "all
the marbles" are IODesign, Iperdome, and a couple of others.  They
are the sole creators of this "conflict" you describe. 

It's as if I kept poking you in the eye, and then I started screaming
that we had a conflict that needed resolution. 

> Note they only need to believe.  They need not be right.
>
> At this point, it is clear to me, and hopefully to you and others,
> that no one is going to win the DNS zero-sum game.  Actually this has
> always been true, but we have to believe it...  

You mischaracterize the conflict, entirely.

> So let's stop the fighting and find a way to resolve things with what
> I am calling a DNS Fair Hearing Panel, which will take statements,
> examine records, and fairly determine the facts, and propose a fair
> resolution to the conflicts for adoption by the community.  The job of
> the panel is to satisfy the community sense of fairness.
> 
> We might even ask ICANN for help in setting up our Fair Hearing Panel,
> though ICANN has so far been hostile to the very idea of such panels.
> 
> On the other hand, you were there in Monterey when DNSO.ORG "hummed"
> unanimous consensus for adopting Fair Hearing Panels for the very
> purpose I am proposing here, and we have always had support for it
> from ORSC.  That makes two contending camps.  Do we have a third?

You are now proposing something quite different than you described in
Monterrey.  In Monterrey you described FHPs as groups that *listened*
to a claim.  In all your discussion you gave the impression that you
thought FHPs were like *non-binding* arbitration.  They were not
decision making bodies, but rather listening bodies that might make
recommendations.

The issue of how to add new gTLDs is *the* major problem that faces
ICANN, and it *far* transcends the fate of IODesign etc.  ICANN/DNSO
must deal with anti-trust issues, trademark issues, generalized
dispute resolution mechanisms, shared registry models described by
the white paper, and a host of other issues.  All those things must
be factored in to any process for adding new gTLDs.  The artificial
"conflict" that you, IODesign, Iperdome, and the others are trying to
create should be very far down on the priority list. 

And in fact, in my opinion it should simply be ignored.  The 
validity of IODesign's legal arguments have been adequately 
demolished once already.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html