[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:05:18 -0500
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Subject: Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft
At 1/19/99, 03:08 PM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Jay Fenello a écrit:
>> >> I've only read up to the point clipped below,
>> >> but if the intro is any indication, this is
>> >> going to be a very impressive document.
>> >What is this, diplomacy? Jay Fenello, the mediator, friend to all?
>> No, this is a compliment for an *introduction*
>> that is extremely well written. Do you disagree?
>That intro is a total mis-characterization of the situation. It's an attempt
>at justifying the addition of the INTA's corporate hierarchy structure into
>the application. Incorporation law requires none of it. Kent Crispin is just
>kissing ass. That's all.
I've now read the DNSO.org's "Merged" Draft,
as well as comments made by yourself and others.
I agree that this revision features a top down
authority model, especially when compared to
other approaches like that written by ORSC.
The way I see it, the DNSO.org draft appears
to be weighted in one direction, while Open-RSC
is weighted in the other.
The reason that I complimented the *introduction*
was that it describes this great philosophical
divide very effectively, and it shows that both
sides have a legitimate point of view. Most
importantly, it highlights how *all* sides in
this debate must work together on a solution.
>> Michael, you were one of DNSO.org's most vocal
>> supporters. You went to Monterey, and you were
>> on several of DNSO.org's closed lists. So what
>I supported the participants at Monterrey and their consensus. I am rabidly
>against this revision and deviation from the consensus, which is a
>railroading job by the "drafting team", that is, the CORE leadership. I
>support the DNSO participants, not the leadership and organizers when they
>won't respect due process and the will of the majority.
>> Aren't you at least partially
>> responsible for the current draft?
>I've fought tooth and nail to stop them from placating the INTA and changing
>the Monterrey consensus. Maybe you haven't seen all my postings criticizing
>the INTA's backroom tactics (see the ICIIU criticism of the INTA's proposal
>at the dnso.org website and at http://www.iciiu.org/dnso.htm). Dr. Lisse has
>done the same. Some of the French and Latin American participants also seem
>to be against the drafting committee's unilateral revision of the Monterrey
>consensus, although, with the dnso.org list manipulations, it's impossible
>any more to know what the participants are thinking. But those who have
>actively opposed this draft want to preserve the DNSO.org participatory
>organization, which was very strong, very united at Monterrey. It has been
>subverted by Crispin and co., solely in order to placate the INTA.
Unfortunately, top down, management structures
often use *closed* processes, and vice versa.
If what you are describing is true, why would
you expect otherwise?
In fact, that's probably the main reason that
ORSC even exists. We got tired of giving advice
and suggestions to closed processes that ignored
our efforts. It was only when we organized an
opposition that people started to take us
And if it's any consolation, Michael, you are
more than welcome to join ORSC. While you have
a unique way of getting your message across ;-)
you have certainly brought a new and needed
perspective to this debate.
Others are welcome to join as well.
President, Iperdome, Inc.