Roberto and all, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > 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. Certainly there will be criticisms, especially when the are well earned as in the case of the "musical and Mysterious DNSO Mailing lists", where some policy issues are being discussed in a CLOSED manner in direct violation with the White Paper and is very likely in a less than legal manner as well. > > > 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 suggestion has already been exposed for what it is, an attempt to CENSOR others from participating FULLY on the "Participants List". That is unexceptable and NOT legal. > > > > 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. And in doing so was warned by myself and others long before the Draft 1 of the DNSO was ever posted. Continuing to allow for the Participants List to exist without everyone having COMPLETE access shows a gross incompatantcy of those that formulated the DNSO at www.dsno.org. > 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). Sorry Roberto, but again as said already, this is NOT GOOD ENOUGH and is a form of CENSORSHIP! > > > > 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. This was not made clear and I also attempted to join the "Participants List" at that time and was not allowed. That is unexceptable! > > > > 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 > > __________________________________________________ > 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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature