Re: [wg-review] No interest in a coalition of DN holders constituencies

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Joanna et al.,

I think Joanna makes a very inportant point here. 
All suitable proposals should be looked at by the
WG Review.  What I would like to see are proposals
from existing DNSO Constituency Members.  Milton
Mueller has already stated his preference.  What
about the others?  If we're going to produce a
circumspect set of recommendations and proposals,
I think all sides need to be heard.  Of course,
the fact that certain entities disagree with some
proposals but offer no substantive critiques or
counter-proposals should not limit our
consideration of all relevant, cogent, and serious
recommendations.  It appears that we have (as
Joanna mentioned) two options before us: 1)
Restructuring 2)Improvement.  The fact that
resistance to either option may be offered by the
current DNSO Members should not dissuade the WG
Review from moving ahead with deliberations and
proposals on either/both.  The BoD clearly
requested proposals for both sets of
circumstances, and it behooves us as a Review
Working Group to seriously consider all the
relevant options.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Working Chair, WG Review     

Joanna Lane wrote:
>  
> Joop,
> That is certainly one approach, but resistance from entities, who cannot
> foresee any possible benefit to themselves from a "clean slate" approach,
> should not be misinterpreted as a precondition to the selection of documents
> produced by members of WG-Review that are worthy of serious debate.
> 
> Here we have two basic models for comparison:- Option A) Improving the
> existing structure - in which I would include creation of an Individual's
> constituency and Option B) Structural Reform - in which I would include
> Danny's proposal, amongst others.
> 
> Members should now take the time to do the same kind of comparatives
> witnessed with the VeriSign agreements, then we can determine the relative
> long terms merits of each.
> 
> I agree that time is a consideration, which is why WG-Review should not be
> ceased on April 16th, but "we don't have time to do this" is simply not a
> good enough reason to set aside any substantive document of quality that has
> been put forward in compliance with all the rules.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 6:09 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-review] No interest in a coalition of DN holders
> constituencies
> 
> For transparency's sake....
> 
> Marilyn Cade let me know privately that she has no time to even think about
> such a constituency. (!)
> No one from either the BIZ or the non-commercial constituencies has shown
> any interest in such a grand coalition.
> 
> Therefore, perhaps for now we better  forget about the coalition and focus
> on the creation of an additional constituency for Individual Domain Name
> Owners.
> 
> --Joop--
> Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
>        The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
> 
> --
> 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
--
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