DNSO decisions was:Re: ???

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

Roeland,

You wrote:

> That's exactly the point. ICAN took NONE of the DNSO application. Rather,
> they assembled their own from the pieces.
>
I have the impression that ICANN's final decision did not come out from the
blue, but was based on the "Singapore Draft", that is a compromise between
the BMW Draft and the Paris Draft.

  Certainly the ICANN's dubious decision did not come our of the blue
as you say here Roberto.  As we are all aware, the ICANN through
Joe Simms and Mike Roberts injected themselves in to the situation
on the DNSO.ORG's Participant list ( I wonder where those archives
will
go now??  ).  And as such the ICANN had an vested interest
in precisely
what form or structure the DNSO would take.
>  
> It is true that they did not choose any of the two "official" applications,
> but it is very important that the two "competing" parties agreed on
> a common
> declaration of principles that was the basis for ICANN's decision.
  Not only did they not choose any of the "Official DNSO Applications"
the ICANN also refused to even consider the application that had the
broadest support which we submitted.
>  
> As I said in a previous message, nobody was completely happy, but very
> few
> were completely unhappy with the decision (probably the people that
> would
> have been completely unhappy with any decision ;>))
  From the reports coming back from Sinagpore, this comment does not
ring true Roberto.  No one was happy with how the ICANn arbitrarily
handled the DNSO and the "Accreditation Guidelines" decisions. 
That has
been reported by nearly everyone that was there, save the ICANN Board
members themselves.

 

>  That kind of does-in the DNSO.ORG
> as they was their reason for existence.
>
I cannot speak for DNSO.ORG, but my understanding of its charter (and surely
the reason for which I joined the process) was to facilitate the formation
of a Domain Name Supporting Organization, not to crate a permanent
structure.
Now ICANN has taken its decisions, and is in control of the process. ICANN
(not the "competing" parties) called the DNSO General Assembly in Berlin,
and the constituencies will self-organize.

  The problem here Roberto, is the ICANN Interim Board is not suppose
to be in control of the process, rather it is to HELP guide
the process.
Hence we not have a ICANN that is in effect attempting to "Capture"
control unilaterally without stakeholder support ( due to not
membership
being in place) the DNS as well as the internet itself.
>  
> So, there's no reason to continue the DNSO.ORG.
  Possibly.

 

Like the IFWP, that once ICANN formed lost any reason to continue.

>  If ICANN now takes over the
> DNSO.ORG web-site then what does that say to the rest?
>
It is fairly reasonable to release the DNSO.ORG domain name, now that the
organization who had it will cease to exist.
In fact, it will be the most obvious domain name for the DNSO, should ICANN
decide to use it for a specific Website that will address Donain Names
issues.

  Could be.  But given this Domain names history I am not sure
I would
want to use it.

 

>  IMHO, that would a
> dumber move, on ICANN's part, then I would normally give them credit for.
> It seems to me that impartiality is exactly what ICANN is striving for,
> with that move.
>
Regards
Roberto

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208