Re: Our draft

["J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bsemich@mail.nu>]

I recall that we agreed - and had consensus - on fair hearing panels.

Bill

In reply to 16 Dec message from Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>:

>When you float it widely for public comment, and then say to us --

>	"Gee, you were not interested enough to attend our meetings 
>	 all over the world, and now you want us to change things!" 

>And when you refuse to change anything "because it is now too
>late", do not be surprised when you get a lot of loud objections
>and claims that you do not in fact have an adequate consensus. 

>You are proceeding very much in the same manner as the IAHC, with
>many of the same players, which of course exp0lains things, as
>people do first what they already know how to do.  And, if you are
>not very careful, you are going to get the same result as IAHC
>got. 

>It is not the same thing to actually hold open public discussions,
>vs creating drafts in private to be displayed for short periods of
>public comment, and then defend the published draft without
>changes, and then claim that you used open processes.

>You should also recall that my refusal to join the DNSO Transition
>Team was due to a clear conflcit of interest.  As long as I am the
>ORSC BoD Chair, I cannot at the same time work against the
>interests of ORSC.  You might recall that at the end of the
>Monterey meeting, nothing from ORSC had been added to the DNSO
>plans other than a rousing endorsement of my concept for use of
>Fair Hearing Panels. 

>May I ask -- Are Fair Hearing Panels included now in your bylaws? 

>Do you have any plans for use of Fair Hearing Panels. 

>Have you articulated any ideas for who to deal with Prospective
>New TLDs?  Do you show any concern for them to be represented? 
>Have you reached out to any of them to find ourt what they want? 

>Are you wating for them to show up in Washington or Caracas before
>you pay attention to them?

>I think that you are assuming that anyone with a point to make
>will show up in person at one of your globe trotting meetings.  I
>am certain that this is not the case, and that by proceeding with
>only face to face meetings to decide how to proceed, you are 
>disenfranchising large numbers of rightfully included people. 

>So, proceed as you wish, be take heed of this warning.  Your
>meetings are anything but open for all those who are not in face
>to face attendance.  And your net-based drafting process is also
>not open, because it is limited to face to face meeting attendees.

>Clearly the next step is to take the Monterey Meeting version of
>your bylaws to the next face to face meeting for the next version 
>discussions.  And I will bet that nothing gets changed because of
>any Internet Public Discussions, or comments from people not
>present. 

>Good Luck;-)...\Cheers...\Stef

>>From your message Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:23:55 +0100 (MET):
>}
>}On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>}
>}> On 14 Dec 98, at 22:43, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>}> 
>}> [...]
>}> > 
>}> > As for what process to use, I suggest that when you are ready
>to field }> > broad public comment, that you float it widely and
>sincerely ask for }> > public comment, and when you get it, pay
>attention to it and use it to }> > widen your support base.  You
>have already created too much of an }> > impression of being a
>closed group for your aspirations to genuinely }> > represent the
>broad DNS community and industry.  It is not enough to claim }> >
>to have an impossible to measure 50% of an undefinable
>constituency.  You }> > need to find ways to include your
>detractors into the ranks of your }> > supporters.
>}> >
>}> Steff,
>}> I think thats a problem of individual perception : many of us
>are doing that in }> good intentions, everybody was invited,
>nobody excluded. Nobody can really }> claim he was not paid
>attention at the meetings. }
>}I too find it very strange that Steff, of all people, claims,
>that he }had no attention !
>}As I recall he had the floor most of the time, even distributing
>papers }that were debated on at the meeting.
>}Then on top of it all, he REFUSED to be in the workinggroup that
>had }to bring in other people around the world.
>}So I think that he should be the last to argue like this. }
>}Regards
>}Per Koelle
>}DK Hostmaster
>}
>}> So what you are stating is a bit strange for me; just want to
>say that I in }> contrary do not mean to be in a closed group.
>}> siegfried
>}> 
>}>  
>}> [...]
>}> > 
>}> > So, you need to seriously attempt to reach out beyond your
>initial }> > vision, and engaging in genuine public discourse is
>clearly required }> > in order to gain your objectives.
>}> > 
>}> > Cheers...\Stef
>}> > 
>}