Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

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

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Stef,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > As I noted at the end of the Monterey meeting, none of the drafts or
> > decisions made in Monterey offered anything to the new gTLD community,
> > so I think it would be appropriate for NSI to consider that these
> > other gTLDs should be included in the 3 seats set aside for the gTLD
> > community.
> >
> > I see no reason to exclude the wannabe gTLD constituency from
> > participation.  Of course, as an ORSC representative I should be the
> > one to bring this up, since no other group is speaking up on behalf of
> > this roundly ignored and thoroughly disenfranchised gTLD constituency.
> >
> > It is interesting that CORE is included among the wannabes, but not
> > speaking up on its own behalf, but I would expect them to support this
> > plea on their behalf.
> >
> I am not entitled to speak for CORE, as you know.
> Nevertheless, I can try to provide a reason for not having strongly put
> forward CORE's interests, which is simply that for the time being there are
> much more fundamental topics under discussion, related to the general
> functioning of the DNSO.

  The general functioning of any organization cannot be adequately addressed
unless and until the "Structure" of that organization is determined.  In the
case of ANY SO, that MUST be in keeping with the White Paper in order to
be successful for the long or possibly even  the short run.

>
>
> My personal fear is that the whole discussion can turn up to be a fight for
> a wider representation, forgetting some of the key issues (what *really* is
> the DNSO? What is its relationship with ICANN? How to allow *voices* to be
> heard, rather than *votes*? and so on). That my fear is not an abstract one,
> has been demonstrated by the amount of time dedicated to horse trading in
> Monterrey.

  Horse trading, should not and cannot occur without the inclusion of all
parties of interest as is clearly stated in the White Paper.  As such, any
relationship with the ICANN would be both improper and in violation
of the White Paper by definition.  VOTES are that only REAL Voice
that has worth or value if any structure is to be based on the requirements
of the WHite Paper, and truly a representative of the Stakeholders/users.

>
>
> > One thing is very clear to me, and this is that the ccTLDs are not a
> > good representative of the gTLD community, just because they mostly
> > react in fear to NSI as "The Sole Representative of the gTLD
> > Constituency".  This of course is false, but it makes for good
> > argument.
> >
> > BTW, I expect that NSI will be pleased to agree with this set of
> > observations, and I expect that they will be very happy to share the
> > voting power that it might be given.
> >
> My hope is rather that NSI will get out of its ivory (golden?) tower, join
> the discuss@dnso.org list, and make their requirements clear in first
> person, allowing us to be freed from the additional task of trying to figure
> out what would be good and acceptable for NSI.

  What is acceptable to NSI is not really the problem of the "DNSO"
at www.dnso.org, or any other Supporting Organization.  Rather it is
the closed structure that the "DNSO" at www.dnso.org that is the problem.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

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