[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Joop Teernstra" <email@example.com>, "William X. Walsh" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "d3nnis" <email@example.com>, "Cthulhu's Little Helper" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:14:32 -0700
- Cc: "Jonathan Zittrain" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Antony Van Couvering" <email@example.com>, "Donald Telage" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Einar Stefferud" <Stef@nma.com>, "Dan Steinberg" <email@example.com>, "Amthony Rutkowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ed Gerck" <email@example.com>, "A Gehring" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Roberto Gaetano" <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>, "Farber@Cis. Upenn. Edu" <email@example.com>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "Eva Frolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "J. William \"Bill\" Semich" <email@example.com>, "Gordon Cook" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, "Esther Dyson" <firstname.lastname@example.org (Esther Dyson)>, "Becky Burr" <email@example.com>
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
These guys are, instead, arguing points of law ... with a law professor:
After the intial introductions (flame exchanges) things are getting back
to normal, debates about endless detail and no serious work. The one
names council member present in the debates worsens the situation. At
his direction, we are dealing with the WIPO report, this is the essence
of the debate.
Apparent intent is to push through mandatory ADR, a la WIPO. IMHO, this
was the intent behind ignoring process in the first place. With proper
process, IMHO, the WIPO report would be rejected until revised as
Michael Froomkin suggested. Unfortunately, they have control of the
track and the train.
Conclusion: We have yet another hi-jacking in motion.
Regardless of the position taken or reached, consensus can not be
achieved by bludgeoning. Garnering consensus is a requirement of the
White Paper. Consensus is only achieved by a process which is agreed to
by all. Dissent has already been voiced WRT the lack of process
(including an embarrassing lack of knowlege about Robert's Rules)
exhibited in the 25Jun99 NC meeting. Any work, on ANY working group, is
irrelevant without an acceptance process and should be disregarded until
such a process is in place. While it is perfectly possible to create
such a process in less than a week, using well understood procedures,
the leadership refuses to do so.
We have less than a month until the Santiago ICANN meeting. The DNSO
train is departing, on track SOLA, for the WIPO station. I don't intend
to be on it.
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
Lead; Follow; Get out of the way.
... pick ONE!