[ga] DNSO: back it, sack it or jack it?

[Mark Measday <measday@ibm.net>]

Mr. Sondow, Mr. Teernstra and Mr. Gaetano are to be congratulated on their
positivism.

One would hope that, with the general agreement to adopt Mr. Alvestrand's
rules of order pro tem, Mr. Gaetano could either perform his mandate
(i) by clarifying whether he is in fact cleared by his organization or
ex-organization to perform as Chair (maybe this has been done, no
disrespect, Roberto) and
(ii) by enlisting discreetly the considerable intellectual resources of the
list members to produce specific proposals.
profitably.

But surely the time has come to act, not brainstorm. You have been
brainstorming for nearly two years. ICANN will be a billion dollar business
by the time domain registrants wake up to the changes in the law and you
will have done nothing to defend them.

Could Mr. Gaetano please provide:

(i) a list of issues to be addressed
(ii) a procedural time frame
(iii) a summary list of ex-officio duties to be performed by list members
willing to assist in (i) and (ii)
(iv) a list of WG's tasked to produce a report on each topic. For example
Mr. Williams could be requested to use some of his spare staff to produce a
report on the possibilities of marketing DNSO membership profitably to
interested parties in the public sector, i.e. charging government
departments for access*.
(v) details of secure communications procedures to ensure that all
communications are kept to an appropriate group.

Best,

MM (gone skiing)

* Hey, Jeff, remember the great Robert Maxwell's Pergamon?  All part of the
service.



Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Brad,
>
> I completely agree with your approach of having smaller task-oriented
> lists.
> I tried already to express the fact that I am uncomfortable with one
> single all-inclusive list, good for discussion on any topic as well as
> for voting.
>
> As far as hosting the lists somewhere else, I have personally no problem
>  in following this model, pretty much IETF-like, should the DNSO
> resources be insufficient to manage the load.
> This, of course, would have the advantage of the "distribution", but the
>  drawback of the lack of uniqueness of the source of information, namely
>  the archives at DNSO.org.
> I also have the impression that there is much sensitivity about the
> "official record" problem.
> Would a list hosted (and archived) somewhere else be acceptable to you?
> Considering the (past, I hope) problems with forging, would people trust
>  a complete list management somewhere else, and with which criteria?
>
> Open for brainstorming.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> >The reason the WGs have their own lists can be summed up by the
> >realization that a small room can hold only so many people. It has a
> >capacity. Just like an ethernet, It will only support a certain amount
> of
> >bandwidth and then come to a halt due to collisions. A token ring will
> >slowly degrade because of it's orderly process.
> >
> >A mail list can only support so much bandwidth in the form of
> cacophany. I
> >use the term cacophany not to merely include disruptive behaviour, but
> the
> >realization that a forum can contain only so much traffic before the
> >insignificant parts for any one person become too much to wade through
> in
> >order to get to their "particular substance".
> >
> >That is why we typically delegate tasks out to various lists, like -
> >discuss, and tech, and legal, and devel. Atty's would have to wade
> through
> >miles of change logs and code if a devel list were merged with a legal
> >list.
> >
> >The problem here, is one of structure, and appropriate divestiture of
> the
> >topics. It's really comical actually. Here we stand. All in one room,
> >talking at the same time about different things.
> >
> >Might I respectfully suggest of our Chair that he consider breaking us
> out
> >into committees by task or topic. Mr. Gaetano is the one person who can
>
> >bring that order. Our lists don't have to be hosted by DSNO.org Several
>  of
> >us here would be more than happy to provide the facilities merely by
> being
> >asked.
> >
> >Committees bring focus to a central point. Remember in the eighties
> when
> >we started thinking in terms of distributed computing? many of us in
> that
> >ivory tower called the "Machine Room" wanted no part of it. PCs forced
> a
> >distrubuted environment, but the big fear was disruption and mass
> >confusion.
> >
> >Most people didn't figure that the PC would just reinforce the notion
> of
> >centralization of databases and files.
> >
> >In other words, How could someone possibly (no sarcasm please) disrupt
> 20
> >mailing lists, with the point people of those lists coordination on a
> >central committee (probably it's own list apart from this one) where
> the
> >work hashed out would come to fruition.
> >
> >Not only is ICANN banking on the assumption that we won't or can't do
> >that, but that is also the very model they have adopted to accomplish
> >their tasks - and it has only strengthened them.
> >
> >Or, we could just keep shouting out our ideas right here in any order
> that
> >suits us.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >
> >> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Those interested in the full truth of what happened in the first
> Steering
> >> > Committee of the IDNO, the trigger event, provided by Joe Baptista,
>  the
> >> > attempted capture of the SC by William Walsh and "Bradley
> Thornton" before
> >> > an agreed structure was in place and their vendetta of slander when
>  the
> >> > majority refused to roll over, can find it all in the idno
> archives.
> >> > http://list.idno.org/archives
> >> >
> >> > Just as ICANN can learn lessons for its General Membership
> structure from
> >> > what is happening here, history of what happened in the IDNO  is
> already
> >> > repeating itself.
> >>
> >> The lesson to be learned here, I think, Joop, is that mailing lists
> >> are not, after all, a useful way of accomplishing good things. There
> >> will always be vengeful, unhappy people like Walsh and agents
> >> provocateurs like Crispin and Crocker to disrupt them.
> >>
> >> Three or four people of like mind who trust each other can
> >> accomplish more, by telephone, than this rag-tag of little Caesars
> >> and neurotic sociopaths. That is what the ICANN Board realizes, and
> >> why they have so far beaten us.
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> Michael Sondow           I.C.I.I.U.     http://www.iciiu.org
> >> Tel. (718)846-7482                        Fax: (603)754-8927
> >> ============================================================
> >>
> >
> >--Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.--  , bootstrap  of
> >the Cyberspace Association,
> >the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> >http://www.idno.org  (or direct:)
> >http://www.tallship.net/idno
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
_____________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
privileged.  If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
form whatsoever.  If you have received this e-mail in error please
e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
______________________________________________________________________