1. I too also recall that there was a strong consensus for fair hearing
panels and feel that we need to incorporate that into the process
2. on the other hand, stef seems to ignore the fact that CORE was
represented at the meetings at both Monterey and Barcelona as well as ORSC.
just exactly what do you propose stef , be done to "articulate" re:
prospective new gtld's. why don't you develop some verbage to incorporate
into the draft and let's deal with it.
3. who is the them you refer to as the "rightfully disenfranchised": please
elaborate on your proposed methodology to avoid this concern. how do you
propose this "public discourse" be accomplished?
heppy holidays
ken stubbs
-----Original Message-----
From: J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) <bsemich@mail.nu>
To: participants@dnso.org <participants@dnso.org>; discuss@dnso.org
<discuss@dnso.org>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: Our draft
>I recall that we agreed - and had consensus - on fair hearing panels.
>
>>And when you refuse to change anything "because it is now too
>>late", do not be surprised when you get a lot of loud objections
>>and claims that you do not in fact have an adequate consensus.
>
>
>>May I ask -- Are Fair Hearing Panels included now in your bylaws?
>
>>Do you have any plans for use of Fair Hearing Panels.
>
>>Have you articulated any ideas for who to deal with Prospective
>>New TLDs? Do you show any concern for them to be represented?
>>Have you reached out to any of them to find ourt what they want?
>
>>Are you wating for them to show up in Washington or Caracas before
>>you pay attention to them?
>
>>I think that you are assuming that anyone with a point to make
>>will show up in person at one of your globe trotting meetings. I
>>am certain that this is not the case, and that by proceeding with
>>only face to face meetings to decide how to proceed, you are
>>disenfranchising large numbers of rightfully included people.
>
>>So, proceed as you wish, be take heed of this warning. Your
>>meetings are anything but open for all those who are not in face
>>to face attendance. And your net-based drafting process is also
>>not open, because it is limited to face to face meeting attendees.
>
>>Clearly the next step is to take the Monterey Meeting version of
>>your bylaws to the next face to face meeting for the next version
>>discussions. And I will bet that nothing gets changed because of
>>any Internet Public Discussions, or comments from people not
>>present.
>
>>Good Luck;-)...\Cheers...\Stef
>
>>>From your message Wed, 16 Dec 1998 09:23:55 +0100 (MET):
>>}
>>}On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>>}
>>}> On 14 Dec 98, at 22:43, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>>}>
>>}> [...]
>>}> >
>>}> > As for what process to use, I suggest that when you are ready
>>to field }> > broad public comment, that you float it widely and
>>sincerely ask for }> > public comment, and when you get it, pay
>>attention to it and use it to }> > widen your support base. You
>>have already created too much of an }> > impression of being a
>>closed group for your aspirations to genuinely }> > represent the
>>broad DNS community and industry. It is not enough to claim }> >
>>to have an impossible to measure 50% of an undefinable
>>constituency. You }> > need to find ways to include your
>>detractors into the ranks of your }> > supporters.
>>}> >
>>}> Steff,
>>}> I think thats a problem of individual perception : many of us
>>are doing that in }> good intentions, everybody was invited,
>>nobody excluded. Nobody can really }> claim he was not paid
>>attention at the meetings. }
>>}I too find it very strange that Steff, of all people, claims,
>>that he }had no attention !
>>}As I recall he had the floor most of the time, even distributing
>>papers }that were debated on at the meeting.
>>}Then on top of it all, he REFUSED to be in the workinggroup that
>>had }to bring in other people around the world.
>>}So I think that he should be the last to argue like this. }
>>}Regards
>>}Per Koelle
>>}DK Hostmaster
>>}
>>}> So what you are stating is a bit strange for me; just want to
>>say that I in }> contrary do not mean to be in a closed group.
>>}> siegfried
>>}>
>>}>
>>}> [...]
>>}> >
>>}> > So, you need to seriously attempt to reach out beyond your
>>initial }> > vision, and engaging in genuine public discourse is
>>clearly required }> > in order to gain your objectives.
>>}> >
>>}> > Cheers...\Stef
>>}> >
>>}
>
>