Joop and all, Joop Teernstra wrote: > At 10:41 19/12/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > > > >On 19-Dec-98 Michael Sondow wrote: > >> Einar Steffurud is suggesting incorporating the ORSC as a DNSO. They've > >> already registered DNSO.COM and DNSO.NET. So what? I can register > >> DNSO.NY.US. Will that mean that I have a voice in ICANN's membership or > >> Board, or that ICANN should negotiate with me for DNS in New York? > >> > > > >If you can develop support amongst a substantive number of stakeholders, > then I > >am sure ICANN will listen to the impact of whatever DNSO. > > > >Remember, ICANN did NOT start this DNSO process. This process was started > by a > >small narrowly defined group of stakeholders. > > > >My question is why do they have the right to do so, and the ORSC does not? > > > >I say let there be two, and lets see which one can fulfill the mandate to be > >open and inclusive and have substantive representation of the broadest > base of > >stakeholders. > > > >If this can be done, then it is very likely that the ICANN will reject both > >applications, and send both DNSOs back to the table with a mandate to develop > >consensus. I think that this is the only way this CORE/PAB DNSO is going to > >make substantive changes that will make them representative of all the > >stakeholder interests. > > > William , Michael and all, > > I would tend to agree with William here. To provide for another DNSO is not > divisive, but may lead to compromise that would otherwise not be achieved. > Exclusion of significant stakeholders is the real divisive policy. > The public pronouncements from those involved with the ORSC generate > confidence that they will adhere to principles of openness and > accountability in a way that the internet typically will make possible. > Frankly I feel that it is you, Michael who has fallen in the trap that I > warned you for early on-- you have become a legitimising factor for "the" > DNSO without being able to exert any real influence on behalf of those you > say you represent. Not only does another "DNSO" organization lend itself to the possibility of of compromise with the DNSO.ORG narrow group, but it as well could stand on it's own as well quite easily and represent a broader base of DNS interest which DNSDO.ORG doesn't seem, by design to wish to enable itself to represent. Joop, it should be clear at this juncture the the DNSO.ORG group is ONLY going to represent and consider those narrow constituents that fit within the filtering Draft-7 articles. In addition with Mike Roberts and Joe Simms into the "Participants List" of DNSO.ORG and the overall involvement in general this should be self evident considering some of both Mikes and Joe's already public statements with respect to the ICANN "Initial" and Interim board. We are no sure if this is by design for the DNSO.ORG or just foolish maneuvering. However if by design it is even more likely to be foolish on the part of DNSO.ORG. > > > What has come out of the deliberations of the Barcelona/Monterrey > participants doesn't look too good. > -Gerrymandered constituencies that only look like some attempted compromise > between ccTLD and PAB/CORE registries. > -A fiscal clause that takes away significant voting power of the members > regarding the regulation of future membership fees. (and indirectly, domain > name registration/maintenance fees). > -No provisions that would take NSI into account. > -Non incorporation > > I know, it's only a draft that is now up for discussion. But why is it that > no serious discussion takes place on these points in the discuss@dnso.org > list? This was by design from the very beginning of DNSO.ORG. I pointed this our early on. And it has now come to pass. > > Surely the drafters themselves would be expected to justify the draft with > convincing arguments in public? You would think that public justification through discussion in public would be preferable. But this is not how the basis of the structure of the DNSO.ORG and the ICANN seem to prefer to do things. This was made evident recently at the November 14 Boston meeting that the ICANN put on. As has now been known for some time Mike Roberts, and now Joe SImms are heavily involved with the DNSO.ORG narrow group it should not be suprising that this sort of mantra would carry over there to an even greater degree. > > Or does it need extensive private discussion first, before the collective > answers in public? > > I would believe in an SO that actively goes out to include consumer > advocates, not as tokens that only need some ego-stroking to become pliant, > but with the full intention to include valid and reasonable concerns of > other stakeholders into policy frameworks. Agreed, you would think so. However this is obviously and self evident that Not the intent of the DNSO.ORG and the ICANN. > > > > > --Joop-- > http://www.democracy.org.nz/ > > __________________________________________________ > 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