[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:42:56 -0800 (PST)
- From: "William X. Walsh" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems
On 16-Feb-99 Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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
> 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.
I still think that there are many things in the draft I support that could be
modified to accomodate the concerns of others involved in this process, and
that there is enough in common between the interests that these two documents
CAN indeed by merged into a compromise consensus.
But this is contingent upon the leaderships being MANDATED to participate
The Paris draft is a product of compromise as well, and I believe it is the
better because of that.
Compromise can go a long way.
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <email@example.com>
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977