Re: Stef's 10 constituency DNSO proposal

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stef and all,

  Thank you for setting forth these point in this manner.  It makes it much
easier to address them one at a time an be clear and concise at the same
time.
So without further ado, here goes...  (See below each one...)

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> 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.

  We realize that you are not clearly, however you do at times seem
to vacillate...

>
>
> 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.

  This idea is laudable indeed, and should be considered seriously, depending

upon the players involved given the history that has already evolved from
the DNSO.ORG skewed process.  Yes I realize that these terms I am using
here are harsh and somewhat controversial.  They are intended to be
harsh... Controversial, is a matter of conjecture.

>
>
> 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.

  No me, but "WE".  As do some others as well.

>
>
> 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.

  I have posted based on my feedback from within our group on several
occasions where we agree and disagree.  That is a matter of public record.
We are currently reviewing this new "Merged Draft" that was just submitted
today.
I have already, however posted some specific "Areas" that we are far apart
on in order to reach anything close to consensus.  I am using "WE" in the
pejorative sense in this comment here....

>
>
> 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.

  There are many more lists and organizations that are discussing
and considering these issues other than the ones that you and I are
members of, as I have been made well aware of, and i believe you are
or should be at least.  Hence, to make any decision based on your comment
here regarding "The Lists" will never be a realistic measure on consensus
unless or until these organizations, individuals, and supposed
representatives
branch our much more broadly as we have.  Hence the size, breadth, and
continued growth of our group.

>
>
> 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.

  If by open you are referring to the extent of 'The Lists" (Your Term).  We
will as we have always, through myself work actively to develop and
EMail based document as you have suggested and we have already
attempted to do all along.

>
>
> 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.

  We have never ignored your or ORSC, BWG, AIP's, or anyone's
proposal.  However, like Mikki, we cannot find any rational to
justify or even find reasonable any constituencies for the reasons
we have stated many time already, Stef.  This is one of the points
that I doubt a valid argument would sway our membership....

>
>
> 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
> }
> }

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