[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stef's 10 constituency DNSO proposal
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:27:18 +0000
- From: jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Stef's 10 constituency DNSO proposal
Stef and all,
Thank you for posting this as with your attachments (Which I am
snipping in this response for the sake of brevity), much is revealed
that is not readily apparent or has been apparent thus far in these
Let me point out a few:
1.) Exclusionary practice of drafting team participation - We find this
particularly concerning as we (INEGroup) have posted our draft
that was not even considered. This is or should be concerning
if you practice what you preach Stef (Stated in your attachments)
as everyone having a voice....
2.) General Exclusionary practice of the DNSO.ORG - This has been
a problem from the start with the DNSO.ORG "Bunch" as has been
stated over and over again by many folks on these pertinent lists.
This was made evident from the beginning of the DNSO.ORG
skewed process by the very nature of the CLOSED list fiasco.
Stef, I am particularly suprised and disappointed at you. I suppose
that Roeland was right when he told me you were a "Fence Sitter" on
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> My intention here is to open the public discussion of the lastest
> melding draft exercise from a cross group effort including
> participants from ORSC, AIP, IATLD, and taking iseads from CENTR,
> DNSO.ORG, and from individual comments on public land provate lists.
> I believe the single most controversial contentious issue is that of
> membership and constituencies. Our problem is not a lack of knowledge
> asbout who are the constituents, but a lask of ability to figure out
> how to afford tham all proper representation and gove them a voice in
> the affairs of the budding DNS industry and its place in the ICANN
> spondored competition for a winning proposal.
> This is evidenced by a last minute split in the drafting team over
> publishing the latest meld draft (*Draft* New Draft, 01/30 15:10EST).
> The team decided to get the draft out for public review rather than
> hold it in private with the hope of resolving the issue before
> release. It is my firm belief that the team's job is to package
> controversy for public debate, rather than to bottle it up with
> internal arguments to select the one right choice.
> The current editing effort is intended to build the winning consensus
> by finding resolutions for all the critical outstanding controversies.
> So, here is an attack on what I think is the key crustial controversy.
> To cover the issues, I am including the recent discussion of my
> proposal as it occurred among the members of the editing team. I
> believe that this kind of discussion should be exposed to the public,
> so I am exposing it here, without permission;-)... My hope is that by
> exposing it, you will see some of what has been happening inside the
> team, and that this is an expeditious way to get the ideas on the
> table for discussion.
-snip attached E-Mails -
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208