- To: DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
- Subject: [Fwd: DNSO Report v2 Appears Biased, Unfair and Inaccurate]
- From: Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:56:51 -0500
- Organization: Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
Dear DNSO Secretariat,
I sent the subject Fwd email to the public comment forum at "comments-review@dnso.org",
as instructed by your email. See, copy of email sent to the
DNSGA from DNSO Secretariat <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org> below:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02189.html
The subject Fwd email has not posted on the DNSO web site at URL
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/maillist.html
[QUESTION] Will email sent to comments-review@dnso.org regarding
"DNSO Review Task Force Report v2" post at the DNSO web site?
Respectfully,
Derek Conant
Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
http://www.dnsga.org
TO: Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN
(DNSO)
Dear DNSO Representatives,
After reviewing the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2 (subject report),
it is appears that the subject report will only accomplish justifying ICANN's
apparent preconceived agendas, whereas, the subject report does not appear
to accurately reflect the DNSO Workgroup-Review (WG) participants' overall
opinions, viewpoints and ideas as expressed in their comments and, furthermore,
the subject report appears to blatantly fly in the face of the spirit and
intent of the WG. It appears that the DNSO is being selective in
choosing to report only matters that are closely associated with ICANN's
apparent preconceived agendas.
To start, the DNSGA contributed approximately 42 comments to the WG
forum concerning the ICANN/DNSO/WG process that appear to have been completely
disregarded in the subject report. See, 42 URLs that show DNSGA
comments submitted to the DNSO/WG process below:
1.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01739.html
2.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01742.html
3.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01743.html
4.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01808.html
5.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01811.html
6.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01817.html
7.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01830.html
8.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01852.html
9.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01856.html
10.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01983.html
11.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01990.html
12.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01992.html
13.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02000.html
14.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02004.html
15.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02021.html
16.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02022.html
17.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02027.html
18.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02032.html
19.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02036.html
20.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02042.html
21.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02043.html
22.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02053.html
23.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02078.html
24.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02079.html
25.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02085.html
26.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02091.html
27.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02102.html
28.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02104.html
29.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02105.html
30.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02113.html
31.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02115.html
32.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02120.html
33.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02121.html
34.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02123.html
35.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02137.html
36.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02149.html
37.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02152.html
38.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02157.html
39.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02159.html
40.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02177.html
41.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02180.html
42.) http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02181.html
DNSGA contributing comments, and other WG participants' comments that
were significant, submitted to the WG through the WG process, appear to
have been completely disregarded in the subject report.
The kind of process the DNSO/WG has shown in the subject report identifies
in itself the very same kind of problem that appears to plague ICANN and
its current governing process and management of the DNS.
The DNSGA plans to be more specific regarding its opposition to the
subject report in supplement comments posted to this public comment forum.
Derek Conant
Chairman of the DNSGA