[baf@fausett.com: Fwd: Report on Teleconference]

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

These are notes that Bret Fausett made of a telecon, called by Mike 
Heltzer, that Jay Fenello, Mike Heltzer, and Bret participated in.  
My interpretation of events would be somewhat different than Bret's, 
and it is important to note that we all made it clear that we 
weren't speaking for any group.  However, there was a "frank 
exchange of ideas".

----- Forwarded message from "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com> -----

Subject: Fwd: Report on Teleconference
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 99 15:22:08 -0500
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
To: "Jay Fenello" <Jay@iperdome.com>, "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>,
        "Mike Heltzer" <mheltzer@inta.org>

Jay, Mike and Kent -- FYI. A copy of what I posted to the AIP public 
list. -- Bret

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear group...

I just got off the telephone conference among the following: me (for the 
AIP), Jay Fenello (for the ORSC), Mike Heltzer (for the INTA), and Kent 
Crispin (for the dnso.org group). The purpose was to find places where we 
agree that might be the foundation for a joint draft. Let me hit the high 
points:

(1) We started by finding consensus in a surprising place. We all agreed 
that the Names Council should be a facilitator of the policy 
recommendation process, and not *the* place where policy recommendations 
are made. As you'll recall, we had been concerned that the dnso.org draft 
and the INTA draft were setting up the Names Council as the proverbial 
"council of elders" that would make all policy recommendations. They both 
appear to have moved in the direction of the AIP and the ORSC. INTA also 
appears to agree with the committee process, and I suggested that the 
detailed "Research Committee" concept from the AIP draft would be a good 
place to go for guidance on what this should look like.

(2) We also *appear* to agree on the idea that the Names Council should 
be able to move a draft policy recommendation forward by approving it for 
submission to ICANN and that it should *not* be able to ignore policy 
recommendations from the DNSO membership. I proposed that the AIP model 
-- which restricts the Names Council to accepting, rejecting, or sending 
back a proposal -- was a place for compromise. I think we have agreement 
on the concept, but we'll need to discuss it further.

     ** Agreement on (1) and (2) was surprising and welcome,
        but I don't read the current drafts of the dnso.org
        and INTA proposals as doing the things that were agreed.
        So there's still a "drafting issue" to work on. Again,
        I suggested that the AIP proposal has language on both
        points.
        
(3) We also may be moving closer together on the idea of a structured, 
constituency based Names Council. The concern (from the AIP and the ORSC) 
about such a Names Council primarily comes when that Names Council is 
given significant latitude in recommending policy to ICANN;   if the 
Names Council functions along the model suggested by (1) and (2) above, 
this obviously becomes less of a concern. We should discuss this point.

(4) We also appeared to agree that *if* there is a constituency based 
membership (still an open question), the constituencies ought to be 
fluid. We agree to examine models for doing this.

(5) The place where we seem to disagree the most is on who should be a 
member of the DNSO. Both the AIP and dnso.org proposals have a 
general/at-large membership, and the INTA appears willing to accept such 
an animal. The ORSC proposal limits membership to domain name holders. I 
raised the concern that the ORSC limitation effectively gives only one 
voice to all of the officers and employees at the world's largest 
companies -- effectively putting them on the same basis as small 
companies and individuals. Jay responded that the proxy system envisioned 
by the ORSC proposal would allow powerful stakeholders to gather support. 
I'll have to take another look at the ORSC proposal in that regard. I'm 
still concerned that the body of domain name holders is smaller than the 
body of persons and companies that legitimately care about DNS issues. 
This is the biggest difference between the AIP and ORSC proposals.

There was also concern voiced by INTA that opening up the DNSO to a 
"general membership" gives the undefined persons who fall in this 
"general/at-large" category a voice in DNS policy as well as a voice in 
the yet-to-be-created ICANN general membership. I suspect that this 
concern largely arises because the ICANN membership is still a work in 
progress and no one knows what it will look like or what its authority 
will be.

Our proposal was also different in that it envisioned existing membership 
organizations coming together to operate as the DNSO, rather than 
creating a new membership body out of whole cloth. I still think that 
this is preferable (as it would provide instant functionality, 
credibility, financial stability, and expertise), but there is either 
distrust or ignorance (not in a pejorative sense) of the model.  

     * * * * *

We may be moving closer. Any thoughts?

   -- Bret

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain