RE: [Enredo] Re: Quick Take on "closed" meeting

["Guy F. de Teramond" <gdt@ns.cr>]

Many of the points raised here by Dr. Pisanty Baruch should be given careful
consideration. As representative of a small country I should emphasize
particularly point
No. 5 below regarding country memberships and definition of geographical
regions.
In fact this point has been brought previously regarding the WWTLD vs CCTLD
discussions.

Regards,

Dr. Guy de Teramond
NIC Costa Rica

Director Computer Center
University of Costa Rica

>
>
> Thanks for your note.  Most of these points came up at the
> meeting, but not
> all of them did, so it was worth it for you to send this letter.  To the
> extent they are not DNSO-specific, they will also be useful in the
> membership meeting tomorrow.
>
> Yours,
> Esther Dyson
>
> At 11:51 PM 21/01/99 -0600, Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ wrote:
> >Antony,
> >
> >your message from the "closed" preparation meeting is taken as
> >encouraging. I wish you could deliver our
> >viewpoints to the meeting tomorrow Friday:
> >
> >(As of now, and pending more detailed argument, after following the last
> >week's list discussions and document postings. These viewpoints arise
> >from a rapid consultation and rough consensus, and are naturally open to
> >further discussion.) (Yet never will enough disclaimers spare us a flame
> >war).
> >
> >1. We second the position which favors DNSO making policy recommendations
> >(instead of executive action).
> >
> >2. It does seem preferable not to incorporate DNSO separately from ICANN.
> >
> >3. Rough consensus coupled with careful polling should be the preferred
> >method of decision-making. In principle we endorse direct democracy and
> >votes but the foreseeable structure, composition and operation of DNSO
> >makes us feel cautious about its real-life implementation.
> >
> >4. Constituencies should preferably identify legitimate public-service
> >institutions, such as educational ones, for membership. Educational
> >institutions, particularly universities, have had a significant,
> >differentiated role in the evolution of the Internet to date and warrant
> >this special consideration. The impact, and the feedback effect, of
> >schools in the future of the Net also warrant this differentiation.
> >
> >5. Proper consideration of geographical diversity does invite individual
> >membership. This is fraught with risks and maybe we wouldn't fight to
> >death
> >for it. However it should be noted that while we do believe that
> ccTLD NIC
> >representatives should have membership, other country-related memberships
> >are a *must*.
> >
> >The definition of "regions", re geographical diversity
> >should be done with wide consultation to people and organizations in the
> >countries involved before lumping them together in what may be an
> >arbitrary fashion. This also has serious implications for defining NICs
> >and their ultimate functions.
> >
> >Large, international bodies like ISOC and other societies
> >should allow for individual, properly legitmated and authentified,
> >participation of national chapters. We are of mixed opinion re regional
> >chapters within a single country. In both cases, convincing arguments as
> >to the independence of opinion of fractions of a single organization will
> >have to be heard.
> >
> >6. Fees should be fixed after constitution of the organization by an
> >ad-hoc task force, and re-evaluated periodically both in amount and in
> >structure, to assure fairness after feedback from the way things first
> >work out.
> >
> >7. While protection of intellectual property must be given due space in
> >decisions, all efforts should be made to have related controversies
> >resolved in existing bodies and by already established methods. The
> >Internet's primary motor must be, possibly for many years, a combination
> >of growth, relevance and service, and its organizations should avoid
> >self-stifling rulings.
> >
> >Therefore, trademark-protecting, large-corporate interest legal
> defenders
> >and similar organizations, perceived by many as different (and even
> >opposite) from schools, small business, social services, individuals,
> >etc.,
> >should have enough play and force in the emerging organizations
> to be able
> >to blow whistles and give warning of possible practices which might
> >compromise intellectual and industrial property, yet still lead to the
> >solution of controversies in fora which will not hamper the growth and
> >accessibility of the Internet. (Wish we had the recipe for this... but
> >there should be enough talent meeting in DC and discussing by email to
> >achieve this result).
> >
> >
> >Alejandro Pisanty
> >President, ISOC Mexico
> >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>  .  .  .  .
> >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty,
> >     Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> >     (Director, Computing Academic Services)
> >     Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
> >     Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico City DF MEXICO
> >
> >Tel. (+52-5) 622-8541, 622-8542; Fax 622-8540
> >.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>  .  .  .  .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> edyson@edventure.com
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: 21 to 24  March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
>
>