RE: additional drafts for dnso

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

Siegfried,

svl wrote:

> I am a bit concerned about CENTR presenting an own, separate approach.
> 
I am concerned too, but it is in their best interest to do so.

It is not important now to try to find out who started to deviate from the
effort in producing a common document, but in the moment in which there are
at least two separate applications at the Feb.5 deadline, maybe it will be
better to have many.
In fact, I suspect that EuroISPA is already planning to prepare a separate
document, and if somebody will blame them, it will not be me.

The fight on which proposal represents a better and larger consensus, and
the fight of the last-minute-all-inclusive-draft is a nonsense. At this
point in time, I would rather have clean-cut positions that represent
consensus of the different constituencies, to be presented to ICANN and
posted for comments at ICANN's site, and a phase-two process starting the
day after where the negotiating effort will be again put in place (but this
time we will have an additional element: the number of comments and support
statements collected by ICANN - everybody will represent who explicitely
endorsed the position, and not imaginary users and members never contacted
in the drafting phase).

> The differentiation between - suppliers - and - consumers - seems to me
> not 
> approriate. I never eat, consume domainnames :-) nor does business org or 
> ISPīs, in contrary they provide names respective (name) service. DENIC
> should 
> be able to tell CENTR about the difference of consumers (of goods) and
> users 
> (of service). Possibly we can forget about that semantics because its not
> the 
> real issue :-)
> 
In Barcelona I proposed three constituencies: "back office", "front office",
"end user" (my background is IT).
Back office means all basic services and technology - like Registries,
Telecoms, Root Servers (if applicable), ....
Front office means all services directly in contact with users - like
registrars, ISPs, ....
Users means domain name holders - like commercial users, trademarks, public
(education, government, public services, ...), at-large users, ...

Maybe I shouldn't have given up. It seems now to me that this is fairer than
the Irish proposal in terms of seat assignment, while keeping the same
concept - devide in meta-categories to take the steam away from the number
and type of constituencies.

> more important is the fact that CENTR, not achieving their goals in the
> common 
> meetings in negotiations with the other parties, is now splitting the
> process. 
> that is a bad move and could result in others doing the same. that is
> leading 
> to nowhere.
> 
I have the impression that in trying to merge with INTA+ICC+other we have
swinged too much to the other side, and some more "technical" constituencies
feel left aside.
I remember that the ccTLDs in Monterrey made a huge effort in trying to stay
into the new consensus (considering also the position that they had when
they came into the meeting).
They felt that the effort they made was not remunerated by the outcome.
ISP (EuroISPA) may do the same, for the same reason.

We told everybody that agreement without the commercial constituencies is
not consensus.
The same holds for Registries.

> I recognize that there are parties who prefer a non-effective dnso, I
> would be 
> sorry to see CENTR in that corner.
> 
> last not least the ORSC-draft. thats really funny : the people most
> concerned 
> about democracy giving registrars/ies veto-power. They recognise that
> these is 
> a problem and try to solve it saying : when everything runs smoothly and
> well 
> we are going to change it. That must be another world : if it runs well
> you are 
> not going to change anything (even if you want, how would you do it?
> against 
> the veto-power?)
> you change things when they are not good. a group defining these rules
> must 
> consist mainly of registrars/ies.
> 
I assume ICANN has final responsibility on the decision, while DNSO has the
responsibility for recommandation.
This means two things:
- first, the incorporation for liability is a moot point, while the
plaintiff will sue who took the decision, not who gave the advice;
- second, ICANN will have a built-in veto power, and if the recommandation
from the DNSO will be formulated on Registry matters without the agreement
of the Registries, they know that it is gonna fail (and they are not so
silly to enforce a decision that will simply be ignored, backfiring on
them).

Therefore, I think that ORSC may reconsider the veto point.

Regards
Roberto