DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>]

All DNSO.org process participants, friends, lurkers and PhD students in search
of pathological cases for your dissertations

I'm sending a short note summarizing what's transpired over the past
week. and to provide some clarification to some mixed messages that appear on
occasion. I'm doing it with some discontent because of how
the process has played out. However, the efforts are not entirely
fruitless and we clearly have much work over the course of the next
month. Provided that all the people involved show a little bit more
willingness to overcome blessed prides, inflated egos and understand
that process *also* predetermines output ;-). 

As we know, prganizations, associations andrepresentaties thereof have a
responsibility to address the objective of creating a functional DNSO
structure that reflects the needs of the stakeholders, as we all know it won't
be the ideal solution for any one stakeholder. But this is inevitably what
compromise is about. And we all know as well that nobody will provide such
structure, but the stakeholders themselves.

As many of you are aware, there are two drafts that have come out of
the so called DNSO.org process. While this is not what was intended,
it is what has resulted and we need to work with this. I mean that this is
clearly a failure of the process itself, as its double goal was to provide a
forum for discussion and a process for drafting a common application form. Now
we all have to decide if this clear failure is also the end of the process or
it still has some value in order to help in the process of convergence between
the two drafts. Provided, indeed, that this is possible and wanted by the parties.

The first draft is based on the DNSO.org work in Barcelona and
Monterrey, and was built on by the organizers of the Washington
meeting. Let's call it the BMW draft (Barcelona-Monterrey-Washington).
Unfortunately the final building and coordination was done
outside of the dnso.org lists. While this is not what was intended,
it's what resulted, which is unfortunate but something we need to move
on from. This application has support coming from a wide range of interests
(what we have agreed to name "consituencies") and also significant support
from witihin our process -- CORE, POC, INTA, ISOC, EuroISPA, etc. have signed
on to it. But not all the particpants will support it. This is why it is less
than Barcelona and Monterrey. Many of the organisers of the Washington meeting
(ITAA, WITSA, ICC..) also support it, and this is why it is "more" than
Barcelona & Monterrey.

[I have already sent this draft, both in Word and text formats. Please be
aware that the text file was NOT the final version.If you arre unable or
unwilling to read the Word files, you'll find a text version at
http://www.witsa.org/press/domainapp.htm. Soon this one and any other one will
be at our website]

The second draft has resulted from a meeting organized very recently
by the ccTLD organisations and NSI in Paris this week. Procedurally, they
wrote a new draft from scratch instead of building/amending/patchworking on
our previous drafts. Let's call it the Paris aap form. Hope the final version
will be soon on these lists, as well as the final list of signatories. Among
them, you will probably find many particpants in this process, and leading
ones: CENTR, APTLD, LAccTLD, .ca, AITLD, ORSC (or at least their
represntatives within our process).

[Jay sent a draft and asked coments. Roberto claims it is the final version. I
really don't know. It will be very helpful if any of the attendeees to that
meeting clarify which is the final version and who has signed on it, as
individuals or organizations]

Regardless of how these two drafts came about, or why, we now need to
focus our efforts on reaching one draft in the month open for public
comment and the upcoming meeting in Singapore. Hope that the promoters ovf
both drafts will share  on these lists their views on how this could be better
done, and if they think that this process/forum is useful to that putpose.

As for "us", the Transition team should assess whether it wants to undertake
this effort (and the related needed reforms) If not, please put forward other
suggestions. It will also need to find new blood to take the lead on this 
effort...or alternatively more cooperation among parties to achieve the same objective.

Amadeu

PS: Some members of the transition team asked me to provide some kind of
"official" explanation of what has happened. This is more or less what I was
required to do. In fact only Theresa has commented the draft I sent some hours
ago to the TT list, so don't take it as an official statement form the
Transition team. Neither as what I really would like explaining about what
heppend. Just as a compromise among the two things ;-)