[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

At 13:58 15/02/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>This meeting needs a clear and definitive mandate from the ICANN board that
>they are to reach a merged compromise proposal, and that no other result is
>acceptable, and that if any party acts in a fashion to be no more than an
>obstacle to that end, they be removed from the process and/or from
>consideration.
>

The deeper question is: is it really in the interest of the DNS
stakeholders to create a DNSO that is "compromised" from the start?

We are talking about founding documents, structures that have to outlast
personalities and that should be corruption-resistant.
Not small political issues that can be resolved by a bit of horse trading.

The best structure has to win the day. This should be first and foremost on
the minds of all participants.
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html