RE: Mailing lists (last try)

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

Eberhard,

You wrote:
> In message <3699C749.1F13F591@nominalia.com>, Amadeu Abril i Abril writes:
> 
	<snip>

> > * Mike Heltzer is indeed in the "drafting@dnso.org" maillist, as
> > proposed by myself, and agreed unanimously (well, without any
> > objection) during the transiton team teleconf (Chon, Antony;
> > Roberto; Lynn; Theresa; David and myself present) and then propos in
> > the transtiion maillist. Only thereafter you raised objections. But
> > you shuld kwno by now, with no excuse whatsoever, that this was not
> > any unilateral action from me.
> 
I said this before, but I am repeating it, because some more lists have been
added in the meantime.

For what my personal opinion is worthed, I am in favour of adding Mike
Heltzer and Mikki Barry to the drafting team.
You and the lawyers sort out the form (voting, non-voting, who decides,
....) but the point is that, if our target is to come up sometimes in the
next month or so with a proposal and an application that has consensus, it
does not make sense to draft the proposal without the people that are
expression to a different point of view.

The drafting team was appointed in MTY, when neither the ICC+ nor ORSC
wanted to be fully involved in the process, otherwise there would have been
no question about having them in the drafting team.

Either they are in, or we can kiss goodbye to the possibility of joining
forces, and we will go to ICANN with separate applications (only to find out
that ICANN will reject them all, and send us back to the drawing table). 

	<further snip>
>  
> > When we re-modelled the draftingteam, I proposed that we should
> > establish a wayu to incorporate in the future a way to cooperate
> > with those submitting relvant coments. We knew that NSI, CENTR or
> > ICC would submit them, (or ORSC) and I wanted a way to deal with
> > this beforhand.
> 
> The Drafting Team has not been remodelled.
> 
Well, if it had not been yet, it should now.
The MTY-appointed drafting team had a task: to draft the MTY-consensus
document.
This took some time, but is now done.

We now need to do another thing, which is to try to merge our MTY draft with
the proposals and comments from other parties (that, in vast majority, did
not attend the MTY meeting).
This task needs reinforcement of the drafting team with individuals that are
knowledgeable of what the other drafts carry, and namely Mike and Mikki.

This said, I would like to restate that the best way to include the comments
and differences from other drafts is to do what you, Dr Lisse, suggested,
i.e. add the alternative wording in brackets, number them and categorize
them.
This work of classification of the differences is best done with people that
know also the meaning and the reasons behind a specific wording, which is
necessary to correctly evaluate whether a difference is just a wording
alternative or if it hides a sticky point.

Regards
Roberto