Re: The DNSO is a special interest group now

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 12/17/98, 02:34 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:
>It has come to my attention that significant discussions are taking place on
>the Participants list that have significant impact on the DNSO and its policies.


Hi William,

I am on the participants list, and I can assure you, 
there are *NO* significant discussions taking place 
there.  For example, the recent DNSO application was 
not really discussed there, it was basically drafted 
in a small committee based on the discussions that 
took place at the Monterey meeting.

What you *are* missing, however, are important tidbits
that are occasionally released.  For example, I have 
attached a recent posting below . . .


NOTE ==> When I was in Barcelona, we had a debate over 
the number and types of mailing lists to have.  Some 
wanted to restrict membership to prevent any disruptive
players from posting.  Others argued for an open list.
The compromise was to have two lists -- one completely
open, and one that was open to attendees of DNSO events.

The intent was to have two *open* lists, one that was 
immune to disruptive behavior (at least, that's how 
it was presented).

What we got was one restricted list that is being used,
and one open list that is not.  To correct this situation,
I suggest that all postings to "participants" be mirrored 
to "discuss."  In the interim, I and others can continue 
to forward informative postings like this one . . .


At 12/13/98, 11:34 AM, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
>> 
>> Amadeu Abril i Abril a écrit:
>> 
>> > Am I authorized to forward current draft7 to them, with the cavbveat that it's
>> > still being disucssed internally and that it could differ from the one we post
>> > next week?
>> 
>> That sounds alright. But I think you should tell them that it is not
>> only being discussed internally, but posted publicly for comments. They
>> should understand that the process is public and not just a deal being
>> made between the DNSO and the trademark interests, even if they are the
>> only constitutency that sent in alternative bylaws.
>> 
>
>Indeed, thas was clear from the very beginning.
>> BTW, I and others submitted comments and revisions on draft 7. Are these
>> going to be discussed? Added? Ignored?
>> 
>
>To whom have been they been submitted? drafting team?. 
>
>I guess that first we should agree whehter the current draft is up for
>publication to the "genreal public" (and I hope we will concur SHORTLY on
>this). Then we should start reconsidering all submissions/comments/amendments/improvements.
>
>> > PS: Apparently, the Wshington meeting is now being scheduled on January 26....
>> 
>> What meeting is that, please? The last I heard of a meeting, it was in
>> Caracas. Many messages mention meetings but don't say what they are for,
>> only the place or date. Very confusing.
>
>Hmmm, sorry about that.
>
>The Carcas meeting announced by Tadao is a proposed meeting to be held there
>in late January with some members of the ICANN Board. I guess that is
>something similar to the one held in Brussels on November 25 or in Boston on
>November 14 (hopefully closer to the European one.....).

>
>The Washington meeting I referred to is a proposal form what we could  all the
>TM/business organisations, coordinated by Joe Alhadeff form the USCIB and John
>Englund from ITAA. Most of those forups (ICC; INTA; CIX; PSWG...) have been
>"sitting on the fence" (or some of them lokking a little bit hi¡ostily) to our effort.
>
>Their approach could be termed as "concnetric talks": first they were
>discussing DNSO internally, then with "sister" organisations, later with other
>business-oriented orgs. Now thy feel fit (and wiling) to jump in and talk,
>discuss, agree on work with our process. Some of them came to barcelona, a
>lttle bit more to Monterrey, and therest tend to feel that a meeting in a
>less-than-exotic place (ie, US East Coast) co-organized by vbarious
>organisatons is absolutely needed.
>
>Some of us (David Maher, Ken Stubbs, Theresa Swinehart, Marty Schwimmer,
>myself) were invited last week to a teleconf where all these issues were
>discussed. As I have already reported (but I think it was only to the
>transition team....) we (we-who-participate-in-the-DNSO-process) made clear
>that we are not in principle against (or in favour) of such a meeting. The key
>question is whether we have sufficient support AND commitment form relevant
>players not still onboard to participate and commit to such meeting; whehter
>we had a previously agreed and hardly worked agenda; and whther we had clear goals.
>
>But, as usual, dates & places are the first thing to be discussed. So,
>apparenlty, if something happens, it will be January 26; at Washington, DC.
>
>For the moment being, I don't know much more about it.
>
>In fact we are in a previous stage: produce docuents, and see whetere here ae
>open issues, which ones, and what are the specific aspirations of every group
>and organistion. Only once is done, we all will see whether there is need for
>such a meeting (i'm afraid that the answer will be yes) and, more importantly,
>which isues have to be discussed there.
>
>Remember: we need to work hard internally (produce docuemnts; comment on it)
>and externally (get more arganisations onboard; dicuss with
>not-so-well-represented-so-far constituencies....).
>
>Best regards.
>
>Amadeu



Respectfully,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com