The point here, my friend, is that many people with a very legitimate
ineterst in the DNSO are being excluded from the participants list,
while others are being added extra-procedurally by Bob Shaw. Together
with all the anger being engendered by closed DNSO lists, we are
aggravating an already bad atmosphere of exclusion and privilege. Surely
you can see that this is ultimately counter-productive, if the goal of
the DNSO is to foster collaboration.
Kent has propsed moving all discussion to the open discuss list, and
closing the participants list, at least temporarily. I second this. Do
you have any objections?
Amadeu Abril i Abril a écrit:
>
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> > Over the last couple of days, I've seen many
> > additions to the participants list like this
> > one. It appears that people are being added
> > who did not attend an officially sanctioned
> > DNSO event.
> >
> > Since I was not at Montery, I don't know this
> > for certain. Could someone please confirm or
> > deny that this is happening?
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> Yes, in the recent days some people have been added to the list. Joe Alhadeff
> and Jon Englund are coordinating an effort to bring some mainly US-based
> arties that had not participated in the DNSO effrt to the table. As they also
> think (and many other agree) that sort of a new meeting should be held
> (Janauary 22 at Washington DC) and they are somehow the "local organizers"
> their presence here is pergeclty justified, I think. CIX who was strongly
> encouraged to attend both Barcelona and Monterrey meetings has also requested
> to be added (thru Eric Lee). Finally Jo Sims has been put on the list.
>
> I think that all their presneces are more than justified, eityher as
> partiicpnats or as listeners (as I guess Joe Simms will behave, but htis is
> just a guess).
>
> We need coordination with ICANN. ICANN has to know what the relevant SO
> efforts are considering (in terms or cincorporation or not, for instance; or
> funding). Joe A and Jon are coordinating a serious effort to bring to the
> discussion some of the previously absent parties. CIX is certainly one of them....
>
> In the sake of speed, time and communication I favour their presence. They are
> exactly the kind of people that we all wnated here fomr the vbery beginning.
>
> But all their additions have been announced so anyone can raise an objection.
> If this is the case, we *all* will consider it.
>
> If your question is: could someone form OR¡SC join= the anser is clearly yes,
> as ORSC has participated through verious people (you and Stef) to the
> meetings. If you ask whether my aunt will join, the answer is "no".
>
> A bit of flexivility is required. You were appointed to the Monterrey
> organisng committee, but when you relized that you were not able to come, you
> asked to be replaced by Stef. It was done so, depsite the fact that the
> participants had never appointed him, in fact they did not knew that the
> change was made. But the relevant question was that it was important not to
> irritate you on a purly procedural (and allegedly minor) trick ;-)))
>
> Regards,
>
> Amadeu