Re: Stef's 10 constituency DNSO proposal

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

Hello Jeff -- 

Point #1.  I assuime no responsibility for anything done by the
	   DNSO.ORG drafting teams, as I am not involved with them and
	   am not trying to contribute to them.  

Point #2.  The current ORSC+AIP+++ "new" draft is an effort undertaken	
	   by a few people to hopefully create a better consensus
	   basis than any other that they (we) know of from any other
	   single source, and it is put out for public c9omment in the
	   hope that public comment will be forthcoming for use to
	   improve the quality and consesus support for the result.

Point #3.  If, as you state, you feel left out, please forward your
	   comments or your draft now for consideration in the editing
	   round that is about to start now.  

Point #4.  It will be very helpful to indicate what you woudl like to
	   see changed in the "new" draft just released.  Specific new
	   replacement text woudl be most helpful.  

Point #5.  Whatever you or anyone else contributes will have to
	   attain a strong measure of consensus from the open lists,
	   which list will, I am certain, respond with comments on all
	   contributions.  The objective of this exercise is to remedy
	   the past failures to work in the open.  WE do nto want to
	   now stop working in the open to argue about the past sins
	   of all who have come before. 

Point #6.  So, we now declare the field of play open and we hope this
	   experiment in open EMail based dcoument development will
	   work as we have imagined it.


Point #7.  Now, I hope that the content of my 10 constituency proposal
           can be considered on its merits in open public discussion.
	   It was first articulated at the DNSO.ORG MTY meeting where
	   it was rejected.  It has since been ignored ijn various
	   other venues, but has not been considered in the current
	   situation or the current wide open venue.  If it has any
	   value, it will have to surface now in this open venue.

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:27:18 +0000:
}
}Stef and all,
}
}  Thank you for posting this as with your attachments (Which I am
}snipping in this response for the sake of brevity), much is revealed
}that is not readily apparent or has been apparent thus far in these
}"DNSO" discussions/debates.
}
}Let me point out a few:
}
}1.) Exclusionary practice of drafting team participation - We find this
}     particularly concerning as we (INEGroup) have posted our draft
}     that was not even considered.  This is or should be concerning
}     if you practice what you preach Stef (Stated in your attachments)
}     as everyone having a voice....
}
}2.) General Exclusionary practice of the DNSO.ORG  -  This has been
}      a problem from the start with the DNSO.ORG "Bunch" as has been
}     stated over and over again by many folks on these pertinent lists.
}     This was made evident from the beginning of the DNSO.ORG
}     skewed process by the very nature of the CLOSED list fiasco.
}
}Conclusion:
}
}  Stef, I am particularly suprised and disappointed at you.  I suppose
}that Roeland was right when he told me you were a "Fence Sitter" on
}the phone.....
}
}
}Einar Stefferud wrote:
}
}> My intention here is to open the public discussion of the lastest
}> melding draft exercise from a cross group effort including
}> participants from ORSC, AIP, IATLD, and taking iseads from CENTR,
}> DNSO.ORG, and from individual comments on public land provate lists.
}>
}> I believe the single most controversial contentious issue is that of
}> membership and constituencies.  Our problem is not a lack of knowledge
}> asbout who are the constituents, but a lask of ability to figure out
}> how to afford tham all proper representation and gove them a voice in
}> the affairs of the budding DNS industry and its place in the ICANN
}> spondored competition for a winning proposal.
}>
}> This is evidenced by a last minute split in the drafting team over
}> publishing the latest meld draft (*Draft* New Draft, 01/30 15:10EST).
}> The team decided to get the draft out for public review rather than
}> hold it in private with the hope of resolving the issue before
}> release.  It is my firm belief that the team's job is to package
}> controversy for public debate, rather than to bottle it up with
}> internal arguments to select the one right choice.
}>
}> The current editing effort is intended to build the winning consensus
}> by finding resolutions for all the critical outstanding controversies.
}> So, here is an attack on what I think is the key crustial controversy.
}>
}> To cover the issues, I am including the recent discussion of my
}> proposal as it occurred among the members of the editing team.  I
}> believe that this kind of discussion should be exposed to the public,
}> so I am exposing it here, without permission;-)...  My hope is that by
}> exposing it, you will see some of what has been happening inside the
}> team, and that this is an expeditious way to get the ideas on the
}> table for discussion.
}>
}> Enjoy!!!...\Stef
}>
}>   -
}
}-snip attached E-Mails -
}
}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
}
}