[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[discuss] Re: DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.

Roeland,

I share your general frustration.  The people who actively comprise the 
field of DNS issues generally--judging from list participation and 
in-person meetings, there are about 200 or so--are a diverse lot, with 
wildly disparate views about substance and process.  I haven't seen an 
environment conducive to getting "real" work done among all those 
people--and by that I mean actually moving beyond rhetoric and into text 
that actually lays out areas of agreement and disagreement, and suggests 
bridges where possible--in a long time.  The IFWP "era" felt that way, but 
I suspect it was because we never had to (or had a chance to) bring it to 
closure--it was a deceptively easy exercise to outline consensus points and 
punt on the rest.  To some, openness means taking in all who wish to 
participate, including those who don't feel like participating 
constructively--defined differently by different people, of course.

Now that various trains are leaving their stations, the distance among 
views is all the clearer, and the lack of trust prevents people from 
sitting down and really hashing out the issues.  It's too bad, since open 
processes only function with a baseline of mutual respect and desire to 
come to some kind of resolution if possible.

I don't know how you picked the people on the cc list to whom you sent your 
note, and I'm loathe to fill email boxes unbidden, but I'd love to find a 
way to build an environment for discussion--and closure--that isn't 
dominated solely by those who wish to speak loudest or longest, and which 
tends towards the hard work that clearly still lies ahead.  I'm open to 
ideas if anyone thinks there's something Berkman can do here.  ...JZ

At 01:14 PM 6/29/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>I just spent thee days trying to herd the discussion into serious work
>on process: Results NIL.
>
>Process issues regarding polling/voting procedures: rejected or ignored.
>
>Attempts to build process document online: rejected or ignored.


Jon Zittrain
Harvard Law School
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
Lecturer on Law
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is98
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj
+ 1 617 495 4643
+ 1 617 495 7641 (fax)