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

["William X. Walsh" <william@tjns.tj>]

On 18-Dec-98 Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> 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.

Roberto asks "What will be the benefit?" 

The benefit will be that the DNSO will be embracing ALL stakeholders, and be
able to point to its actions has an example of how it is doing that.

 
>>   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).

Yes, they are welcome to join the lesser list.  But sorry, they aren't "good"
enough to join us as a full member on the participants list.  They may discuss,
but they may not be a participant.

You may not see the distinction.  I think most others do. 

>> 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.

You seem to have forgotten the part of about incorporating these interests (who
are a substantial potion of the stakeholder community) to the LEADERSHIP.  

All you have done is welcome them into the lower group of your organization. 
And not provided any substantial changes to your organizatinal structure.
 
>> 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?

Again you presume that I am representing the interests of ccTLDs and
complaining from that point of view.  I have made it clear that is NOT the
case, the DNSO has plenty of token participants from the ccTLDs which it is
pointing to even now and saying "Look how open we are!"

 
>> 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

Close ALL lists (including any we do not know about for the private discussions
amongst the leadership).

Create ONE open list and welcome ALL stakeholders.

Make substantive changes to the leadership structure that includes all
stakeholders, including prospective registry interests.

Make substantive changes to the DNSO "application" or structure as a result of
input from ALL stakeholders.

These issues have NOT been addressed, and I don't see them being addresses in a
serious manner at all.  I must conclude that this DNSO has no intention of
being truly open and representative of all stakeholder interests.

I urge ALL interested participants to issue statements to the DNSO.ORG that
their closed processes are NOT acceptable.  You MUST make your comments known
to them.

Support efforts for a truly representative open alternative DNSO.  This will
serve a big purpose.  With a second, competing application, with significant
backing, ICANN will be forced to send the two parties in to work out their
differences.  If they do not do so, then it will be shown publicly what I
already feel most of us believe privately, that a lot of the decisions about the
DNSO and ICANN are being made in closed door meetings that none of us hear
about, by those who would have the CORE/PAB structure dominate the DNSO process.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18-Dec-98 / Time: 08:14:11