[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

Javier Sola wrote:

>You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws.
>I understand that it is against the interest of your organization that the
>NC works at all, but be assured that open lies and flames will not help
>your cause.


You seem to have become a convert to the leap-before-you-look school of
dialogue.  Your note contains serious false innuendos and incorrect
information that you might easily have avoided.  Although you seem to have
intended it to be taken so, I won't interpret your remarks as a personal
attack, but they do warrant an answer.  That I'll address in this message.
Also, the Names Council *has* in fact violated the bylaws, as I will explain
in a separate message.

Your comments also betray a worrying lack of knowledge about the history of
the DNSO.  This is not entirely surprising, since you were not at the
meeting in Singapore where it was formed and you were not involved in the
compromise that led to its creation.  Perhaps this explains disdainful
attitude toward the General Assembly that is so entirely opposite to the
spirit of that meeting.

You say I didn't comment on WG-A.  That is false.  I made extensive comments
on the WG-A, they were communicated by way of the ccTLD Names Council
members.  Other comments from ccTLD members were also channeled through the
same method.  The desire was to speak as a consituency, with one (strong)
voice.  (I note, however, that the Names Council did not see fit to publish
the responses of the constituencies, which they solicited.)  That you did
not hear from me directly means nothing.  If you are interested, I'd be
happy to forward to you my message to the ccTLD constituency with regard to
WG-A.  I also filed a response to the WIPO report, which Christopher Gibson
of WIPO told me he had read, and in response to which, he indicated, the
WIPO drafters had made changes.

You imply that I have not been a participant, you imply that I am only
complaining about lack of consensus.  I say you are wrong, I say that I have
been a very active participant in these proceedings, as you well know.  As
well as being on the drafting committee of the earlier DNSO.ORG group, I
helped draft the Paris Draft.  I was the co-chair at the Singapore meeting
that came up with the compromise that allows the DNSO to exist today.  I
have been very active in the organization of the ccTLD constituency.  I ran
for co-chair of Working Group D.  I am currently standing for election as a
Names Council member within the ccTLD constituency.  I cannot be a member of
every group.  Does this mean that I should muzzle myself?  I don't think so.

I find the implication that I have done no work, and hence have no right to
criticize, insulting - not only to me, but to others who have questioned the
metric you have used to guage consensus.  Also, if you have something to say
about my participation, say it directly to me instead of couching it in the
passive voice.  If cannot say something directly, then say nothing.

You say also that it is against the interests of my organization that the
Names Council should function at all.  I assume that by "my organization"
you are referring to the International Association of Top Level Domains
(IATLD), which has as its primary mission preserving RFC 1591 as the source
of authority for all delegations of TLDs, and as the starting point from
which changes in the governance of TLDs should proceed.  There are two
possible interpretations of your comments - well, three.  First is that you
believe that the Names Council should be against RFC 1591, which has quite
creditably ensured Internet stability in the domain name space for many
years.  If the Names Council were against RFC 1591, then yes, we would hope
that it didn't work.

The second intepretation would be that you believe we were against the ICANN
process in general.  That would be laughably false.  As evidence I point to
the extensive involvement in the ICANN process by the IATLD, which includes
my own work mentioned above, as well as meetings with ICANN Board members,
close co-operation with IANA, and successful efforts by the IATLD to defuse
tensions between members of the GAC and ccTLD managers.  On top of that, one
of our number is a member of the Names Council itself!

The third possibility is that you didn't think before you typed.  I leave it
to readers to decide if that is the case.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Javier
>Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 3:27 AM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair
>>However there seems to be no problem for the NC to impose a UDRP on the
>>entire world with barely a nod to looking at whether this achieved any
>>consensus within the General Assembly, which is the yardstick by which
>>recommendations should be measured, according to the the DNSO bylaws.
>Following the procedure established by the bylaws, the report has been made
>public in the DNSO website for comment by anybody who wishes to do it. The
>truth is that we have not seen many comments (the ones received have been
>taken very seriously and the most relevant opposing comments are attached
>to the report).
>It is easy to complain about lack of consensus. It would be much more
>productive to actually participate in the process and comment on the
>documents instead of figuring out new ways to meausure consensus that only
>complicate the system.
>You had the oportunity to comment and you did not.
>> We
>>know that a bare majority of NC members read the GA list.  I have seen
>>nothing articulated about how to measure a consensus within the General
>Members of the constitunecies are, so far, the largest part of the GA. They
>have two ways of participating in the decision making process, either using
>the GA list, or through their constituencies. The Names Council not only
>receives input from the GA, it also receives it from the constituencies,
>completing the picture. You cannot use the GA list as a meausure of the
>desires of the GA.
>>Names Council members who vote for these recommendations from
>>hastily-arranged working groups are actually doing the positions they
>>support a serious disservice.  The recommendations will be discredited in
>>not too long a time - not necessarily because the recommendations
>>are bad, but because the process of the working groups (too
>hasty), and more
>>especially the behavior of the Names Council (defensive,
>autocratic, and in
>>violation of the bylaws), will tarnish them badly.
>You know quite well that the pNC has at no point violated the bylaws.
>I understand that it is against the interest of your organization that the
>NC works at all, but be assured that open lies and flames will not help
>your cause.