[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you to
- To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you to
- From: "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg Crew <email@example.com>, Mike Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, George Conrades <email@example.com>, Frank Fitzsimmons <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Hans Kraaijenbrink <H.Kraaijenbrink@kpn-telecom.nl>, Jun Marai <email@example.com>, Geraldine Capdeboscq <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eugenio Triana <email@example.com>, Linda Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DC53BF86@MAILDC>
- Sender: email@example.com
On 12-Sep-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> William, as you know, I've spoken in support of the need for the process you
> are articulating. And that the issue needs to be how, not how many. I think
> you will recall that. thanks for the posting. Marilyn
Well, all I can say is actions speak louder than words.
I have, and will continue, to call for people to focus on this issue, but the
focus continues to be on "how many" despite words from people such as yourself
that they agree it should be otherwise.
I'm no longer taking people at their word. I'll take them at their actions.
And right now, there are no actions in this area.
Myself, Chris Ambler, Ross Rader, Kevin Connelly, Rita Odin, Robert Connelly,
and a few others began such a discussion on this list, but once again it got
dragged down into the "how many" debate.
I continue to believe that such an effort cannot work on this forum. It gets
bogged down by certain individuals who I can't help but think have some
interest in seeing no consensus reached here.
I again propose, and offer to host, a subgroup/splinter group to develop a set
of standards and contractual requirements for new registries from a group
composed of individuals from the various identifiable interests, said forum to
be archived publicly and on the record. The results to be presented to this
workgroup for feedback and comments and a request for a feeling of consensus.
I do not believe that this workgroup list can be an effective forum for that
process. It is too easily distracted and sidetracked into non-focus areas,
regardless of if you believe that to be intentional or coincidental.
I have the resources, and will gladly donate them (the list is already
established), or have the DNSO secretariat set it up, but either way, this is
an area we MUST move on, even without the endorsement of this workgroup's
leadership. If the won't provide the leadership and direction, then we need to
provide it ourselves and start working.
A set of standards and contractual obligations, along with a document about the
specific concerns that are being used to justify these standards and
obligations, done is a clear and concise form, will almost command consensus.
I do believe this is possible, I've seen some of the most active participants,
who have set thoughts and opinions on how this process should run, actually
work together here on some of these issues, putting aside petty problems from
prior forums, and be able to address each others concerns and find areas of
So, in closing Marilyn, I am asking that those who say this is where we need to
go, need to show some leadership in actually moving towards doing that, no
matter what it takes, even if it means doing it somewhere other than this
We are running out of time.
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
<IDNO MEMBER> http://www.idno.org