[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] Re: DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <email@example.com>, "Joop Teernstra" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>, "d3nnis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Cthulhu's Little Helper" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [discuss] Re: DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- From: Jonathan Zittrain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 16:19:29 -0400
- Cc: "Jonathan Zittrain" <email@example.com>, "Antony Van Couvering" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Donald Telage" <email@example.com>, "Einar Stefferud" <Stef@nma.com>, "Dan Steinberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Amthony Rutkowski" <email@example.com>, "Ed Gerck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "A Gehring" <email@example.com>, "Roberto Gaetano" <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>, "Farber@Cis. Upenn. Edu" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "Eva Frolich" <email@example.com>, "J. William \"Bill\" Semich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Gordon Cook" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Esther Dyson" <email@example.com (Esther Dyson)>, "Becky Burr" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
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:
>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.
Harvard Law School
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Lecturer on Law
+ 1 617 495 4643
+ 1 617 495 7641 (fax)