Not knowing the subscription address, I must make this
request in public on these lists.
-- Christopher Ambler-----Original Message----- From: William X. Walsh <william@tjns.tj> To: IFWP Discussion List <list@ifwp.org> Cc: participants@dnso.org <participants@dnso.org>; discuss@dnso.org <discuss@dnso.org>; Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>; Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> Date: Thursday, December 17, 1998 6:25 PM Subject: [ifwp] RE: Addition of Joe Sims to Participants Mailing List
> >This would not be sufficient to stifle the criticisms of the lack of openness >in this process. All this does is let us see what is decided by those on the >internal list, and not have any significant impact as to the content itself. > >This is not acceptable. > >There is only one acceptable solution, as I have posted previously. > >Open ALL closed lists. Divulge all list addresses being used for these private >internal discussions. Welcome ALL who would be consider potential members of >the DNSO to join these lists and have some input as to the structure that is >being built to represent their needs. > >Begin making substantive and real efforts to include ALL stakeholders in the >process and to add them into the leadership of this organization. We are >talking about organizations such as Image Online Design, who to my knowledge as >not received a single invitation to be a welcome participant on this (Chris >please correct me if I am wrong). > >Adopt changes in the current DNSO leadership structure and process that >unfarily advantage the CORE/PAB structure over those of other interests. These >interests much be represented equally in the leadership as well as the >membership of this organization, and must be able to have substantive ability >to affect the final organizational structure and policies that are being >developed. > >In absence of this, I assure you, there will be a second DNSO formed quickly >and that will embrace all stakeholders, and build a structure and and >membership to counter this DNSO and its behind closed door structure. > >The ICANN had the support of the USG from the beginning, the DNSO does not >enjoy that support, and cannot try and use the same methods ICANN did to get >accepted despite substantial objection. > >And if anyone thinks that is not what is being attemped to have happen, they >are fooling themselves. > > >On 18-Dec-98 Roberto Gaetano wrote: >> Folks, >> >> IMHO the solution is to allow "discuss" subscribers to read "participants" >> posting, but not to write on it. >> This guarantees openness, and that decisions are not taken behind closed >> doors (besides that a quick check on the history of the lists can show that >> the only item of any relevance discussed on participants has been the >> preparation of the draft report - and this is perfectly reasonable, because >> I cannot understand how those who didn't participate in a meeting could help >> in drafting the minutes). >> >> In fact, all the relevant discussion has been done so far in the discuss >> list. >> >> What I confess being unable to judge is the technical complexity of putting >> this in place, but I would be very surprised to learn that this can be more >> of a few minutes work. >> >> Roberto > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC >Network Operations | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj >william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email, >+1-(209)-493-6144 | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: 17-Dec-98 / Time: 18:14:08 > >__________________________________________________ >To receive the digest version instead, send a >blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: >subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: >unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org. >___END____________________________________________ >