------ =_NextPart_000_01BE29C3.24EBBA50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
i found the idee of 'fair hearing panels' steff has metioned in =
Moterray
democratic and positiv.
I'm not shure how can we implement this in the draft but im happy to
know about and use this wen DNSO is established.
New gTLD,
I think you all will remember to the paper bernard was giving us copys
form the Boston Meeting with Centr,=20
Mike Roberts, POC, Core, NSI and other. One of the 11 pricipals of this
paper says that we are not against new gTLDs.
And i can say you personal that if there is an open an fer process =
every
one who follow the later to defined roles shall became a registry for a
new gTLD. This shall be open and not dirciminators, not for Profit ...
look at whitepaper.
Steff i think you will be welcome for me and i remember to any ver good
statements in Monterray. I'm remeber with a little sad to your last
statement there wen you mentioned that you can not support our
DNSO-Process.
I will look forward to see you eventually in Washington an 22th of jan.
Frohe Weihnachten
Herbert Vitzthum, NIC.AT registry of ccTLD .AT
> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@dninet.net]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 17. Dezember 1998 13:50
> An: participants@dnso.org; discuss@dnso.org
> Betreff: Re: Our draft=20
>=20
> hello out there
>=20
> 1. I too also recall that there was a strong consensus for=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> incorporate
> into the draft and let's deal with it.
> 3. who is the them you refer to as the "rightfully=20
> disenfranchised": please
> elaborate on your proposed methodology to avoid this concern.=20
> how do you
> propose this "public discourse" be accomplished?
>=20
> heppy holidays
>=20
> ken stubbs
>=20
> -----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
>=20
>=20
> >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
> >>}> >
> >>}
> >
> >
>=20
------ =_NextPart_000_01BE29C3.24EBBA50
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="Herbert Vitzthum.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="Herbert Vitzthum.vcf"
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Vitzthum;Herbert;;;
FN:Herbert Vitzthum
ORG:NTS Netwerk- u. Telekom Servicegesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KEG.
TITLE:Gesch=E4ftsf=FChrer
TEL;WORK;VOICE:+43 (662) 459658-10
TEL;HOME;VOICE:+43 (6246) 73689
TEL;CELL;VOICE:+43 (664) 222 96 19
TEL;WORK;FAX:+43 (662) 459658-58
ADR;WORK:;;Schillerstra=DFe 30;Salzburg;;A-5020;=D6sterreich
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:Schillerstra=3DDFe =
30=3D0D=3D0ASalzburg A-5020=3D0D=3D0A=3DD6sterreich
URL:
URL:http://www.nts.at
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:herbert.vitzthum@nts.at
REV:19980814T203746Z
END:VCARD
------ =_NextPart_000_01BE29C3.24EBBA50--