Re: [ifwp] Re: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay and all,

  The problem with the DNSO.ORG "Merged" draft is really two
fold.  One, as you clearly pointed out Jay, is that it is a top down
proposed structure to a "DNSO" the other is that there is basically
no alternative funding source other than dues.  This would make it
basically ineffectual in the mid to long term as an effective "Advisory
body" to the ICANN.  Another problem with ANY DNSO at this juncture
as has been pointed out occasionally, is that the ICANN will not
carry them under their "Umbrella" and currently wishes to have them
separately incorporated.  This is in violation of MoU with the NITA
and also not allowed under corporate law for this kind of structure.

  The ORSC proposal, ha s one problem that it shares with the DNSO.ORG
draft that stands out in our minds anyway.  That being, it too has no long term
STABLE source of funding other than membership dues.  Again this sort
of funding source will not likely support a "DNSO" for any length of time.

  We (INEGroup) have been able to secure sufficient long term funding
for and alternative or any "DNSO" that may emerge that has an open
policy with respect to membership (Classless structure).  I have informed
Stef and the DNSO.ORG "Bunch" of this.  Stef has expressed an interest.
However there would need to be a amendment in the ORSC current
bylaws to accommodate any outside funding source at this time.

Jay Fenello wrote:

> 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.
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> 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
> >> happened?
> >
> >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
>
> seriously.
>
> 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.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc.
> 404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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