RE: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Maybe that's the answer. To be critical and hostile, and suspicious...

But that seems an "easy answer" to me. It discounts me, and Kent Crispin,
and ... Mike Roberts, and Denis Jennings, and ... many more......... I'd
like to create an environment which respects each of us (and all new players
as they learn about and get engaged) and yet ensures stability.
Infrastructure must be stable. Otherwise, businesses and individuals who
count on it, fail.... seems a critical issue to all of us as we work to
ensure that ICANN can achieve it's mission. private sector (that means
industry, non commercials, and more)  oversight of the technical issues of
the Internet: protocols, addressing, and domain names policy. 

Let's see if there are other alternatives, or other ways to be heard.  I
think that the one issue we all agree on is: let's hear as much as possible
from diverse voices. 

I'm not in total alignment with the views expressed by the group, but I will
help to ensure that discontent is recognized. As well as agreement. 

I don't agree with anarchy as a result, but I will work to achieve processes
which enable input, even when the voices are in disagreement with mine. 

I don't agree with many of the views expressed in the WG-Review but I
support the need to have a vehicle to identify and work toward constructive
input.

I don't support complete overturn of the constituency model, but I am open
to dialogue about new constituencies if they indeed are able to demonstrate
that they can provide an organized and coherent input.  

In short, change doesn't scare me. ICANN isn't the total answer to issues
related to the Internet. I work in other fora, where the governance of
content on the Internet is the topic of the day. Anyone who wants to help
prevent governmental oversight of the Internet on content should be joining
other groups... and their input would be very helpful. But this is not
ICANN's agenda. 

let's get back to ICANN:  we haven't really enabled dialogue.  But we have a
good start. Let's think about dialogue which is meaningful and supports
contributions. 

It's not just Rome which wasn't built in a day.



Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:Eric@HI-TEK.COM]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 9:03 PM
To: Sotiropoulos
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Kent Crispin; review
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9


Of course not it is tooo hot.

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
>
> > We seem to be spinning around on some issues. Is this particular one
moving
> > the WG forward? What are we trying to change through this particular
> > dialogue?
>
> How about the fact that this issue did not even appear in the RTF
"report",
> despite the volume of discussion on the topic in the WG?
>
> SS
> HN, Inc.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html