RE: [ifwp] RE: Addition of Joe Sims to Participants Mailing List

[Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>]

William,

You wrote:

> This would not be sufficient to stifle the criticisms of the lack of
> openness
> in this process.  All this does is let us see what is decided by those on
> the
> internal list, and not have any significant impact as to the content
> itself.
> 
My target is not to stifle criticisms. Criticisms will always be there, no
matter what will be done, and we have to live with it.

I recognize that there is no whatsoever need to keep the discussion on
participants@dnso.org "secret" to the rest of us (i.e. to subscribers of
discuss@dnso.org). Therefore, I believe the best thing to do is allow
everybody to read what is going on on this list (if anything).

> This is not acceptable.
> 
If this is the feeling of the majority, it will not be done.

> There is only one acceptable solution, as I have posted previously.
> 
> Open ALL closed lists.  Divulge all list addresses being used for these
> private
> internal discussions.
> 
What will be the benefit?
The participants@dnso.org is a subset of discuss@dnso.org.
If the former will be open (as I suggested and you refused) for read by
everybody, everybody will be able to read everything. Also, every message
posted on discuss@dnso.org (open for write to everybody) will reach
everybody.
To allow people to write on participants@dnso.org will have only one effect:
that everybody will join both lists and every single message will be
regularly posted on both lists and received in double. This is already
happening: sometimes I have 3 and more copies of the same message.
If this is synonimous of democracy, let's open 10, 100, 1000 E-Mail lists
and allow everybody to post on all. This will make the joy of some, without
bothering anybody that can reasonably use an E-Mail filter.

>   Welcome ALL who would be consider potential members of
> the DNSO to join these lists and have some input as to the structure that
> is
> being built to represent their needs.
> 
Everybody is welcome to join the discuss@dnso.org, which would have allowed
(under my proposal) to read all traffic and to post to the superset of users
(i.e. to everybody).

> Begin making substantive and real efforts to include ALL stakeholders in
> the
> process and to add them into the leadership of this organization.  We are
> talking about organizations such as Image Online Design, who to my
> knowledge as
> not received a single invitation to be a welcome participant on this
> (Chris
> please correct me if I am wrong).
> 
I have posted a message to the IFWP list when the DNSO was being started
(before the Barcelona meeting) inviting everybody to participate.
Jay Fanello, just to make an example, answered that he was interested, and
subscribed to the list. Anybody else could have done the same, in particular
Chris, that is without any doubts one of the Internet stakeholders that has
more interest in Domain Names issues, I think.

> Adopt changes in the current DNSO leadership structure and process that
> unfarily advantage the CORE/PAB structure over those of other interests.
> These
> interests much be represented equally in the leadership as well as the
> membership of this organization, and must be able to have substantive
> ability
> to affect the final organizational structure and policies that are being
> developed.
> 
I don't think that the current leadership advantages the CORE/PAB structure.
In fact, the most common complaint in the DNSO community is that the
interests of the ccTLDs and/or the Trademarks are overrated vs. everybody
else.
But there's only one thing I can do: reiterate the invitation to
participate.
BTW, what interests do you think are underrepresented?

> In absence of this, I assure you, there will be a second DNSO formed
> quickly
> and that will embrace all stakeholders, and build a structure and and
> membership to counter this DNSO and its behind closed door structure.
> 
> The ICANN had the support of the USG from the beginning, the DNSO does not
> enjoy that support, and cannot try and use the same methods ICANN did to
> get
> accepted despite substantial objection.  
> 
> And if anyone thinks that is not what is being attemped to have happen,
> they
> are fooling themselves.
> 
Regards
Roberto