Tony, Ken and all, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > Ken, > > >why not involve yourself a bit more on the front end rather than just > >sitting on the sideline. > > 1) The is a largely part-time, gratis endeavor for me. > 2) the dialogue has been substantially fragmented among > different groups and lists. > 3) There's evidence of precious little substantive > dialogue. (How many messages about Jeff Williams can > you read before you just filter it all out.) Thank you fro pointing this out Tony. At times on this an other lists there seems to be a preoccupation with ME and others from a personality point of view, rather than from a substance one. Indeed this is unfortunate and lends itself to reducing legitimacy and creditability to the IFWP list in particular by those that have this particular bent. > > > >p.s why does the dnso HAVE to be a corporation. elaborate please !! > > The questions I posed were threshold, fundamental ones > that don't appear to have been addressed yet. Bret's > response was a sanity check. And Brets point was a good one. > > > The so-called supporting organizations are at present > a combination of advisory committee and class of member. > The original conceptualization was a bizarre construct, > and I'm hardly the first person to point that out. You certainly aren't Tony. But it is refreshing to have others such as yourself recognize these seemingly inconsistencies. > > > I think we may agree on those points. Thus what would > have been expected is exactly what I suggested - prepare > a description for the ICANN Domain Name Advisory Committee, > it's composition, structure, and decision making process. > Consonant with that approach, I'd simply state all Board > members should be elected by the general membership. Exactly right Tony. And thus the membership and the structure should be the focal point. Yet we are seeing from this "DNSO" (www.dnso.org) a reluctance to focus on the membership requirement. Wonder why? > > > What we have at present is some kind of "thing" that's > associated with a poorly written text from some collection > of people in Barcelona and Monterrey. Another species > of "thing" is floating around with INTA at the top that's > a little better written but still half-baked with plainly > unacceptable provisions. And, we have an incorporated > ORSC with a definitive dns related mission and purpose > that's being revised. That seems to be a fair statement > of the status quo. It's rather like Brownian Movement. LOL! Good point. Well taken. >;) > > > I'll admit I'm doing much more than saying there's a real > problem here, and with no apparent remedy, and certainly > no acceptability among either "the community" or NTIA. Well lets hope that the NTIA can see through this brown haze anyway. > > > --tony > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature