You wrote:
> Yes in fact they are. They set a entry requirement to be a participant,
> that
> even the members of the DNRC (who no one can dispute must be considered a
> significant stakeholder and participant) was unable to meet.
>
I really hope that we could stop playing with words, and go to the facts.
"Participant" does not mean "participant to the process", but "had
participated to the meeting".
In fact, as I repeated ad nauseam, this list (participants@dnso.org) had a
meaning when the draft document had to circulate (I hope that everybody
agrees that who did not participate in the meeting could not be fully aware
of what had been decided).
It is now useless - BTW, I unsubscribed from it.
To play with the words, and insist that people that are not in that list are
excluded from the process is incorrect (and I personally believe you know
it, along with everybody else in these lists).
> Token nods to people like yourself, and some select ccTLD managers (mostly
> from
> government regulated ccTLDs) are the things they are using to point to and
> say
> "Look how open we are."
>
When you say "some select ccTLD managers" you imply that somebody made a
selection, i.e. told: you can come, you cannot. This is another false
assertion. Those who wanted to come, came. Those who didn't, didn't.
DNSO.ORG doesn't claim to represent those who don't want to be represented
(contrary to other organizations and lists). Nevertheless it is a fact that
many were there.
>
> That is the point, the DNSO.org is giving only the appearance of doing
> these
> things (much like the ICANN did until the USG sent them back to try
> again).
> They have made no substantive effort to work with varied interests that do
> not
> meet their own agenda. Token nods only, nothing substantive has been
> changed
> or included to address other interests, at all.
>
We didn't oblige people to join.
NSI, for instance, refused, and we accepted the decision.
Do you have one example of individual or organization who wanted to join,
and was rejected?
>
> Actually, it was presented that I only want to join the participants list,
> and
> that is NOT the case. Simply agreeing to add myself to the list does NOT
> address my concerns in any fashion whatsoever (and they know this, so it
> is no
> surprise to me that they have no invited me to join. They would only do
> so if
> they thought it would quiet me.).
>
> The simple fact is that until draft >>SEVEN<< was made public there was NO
> effort to solicit ANY substantive comments and input from ANYONE except
> those
> on the participants list or in the CORE/PAB inner circle.
>
As repeated ad nauseam, the people that participated in the Monterrey
meeting had to agree on a common version on what had been *really* said and
agreed (and what was disagreed as well) upon.
During this process, people that did not participate in the meeting could
not provide any viable input, just because they did not know what happened.
It is pretty much the process of circulating the minutes of a meeting among
the participants, to agree on a common version, then publish it.
On the discuss@dnso.org list, people can now freely argue on the contents of
the draft, suggesting, for instance, to incorporate (in spite that the
consensus was not to). To draft what was the document reporting what has
been said at the meeting including new objections that had not been made at
the meeting would have led to a false report.
> It was only posted to the public list after members of the closed list
> objected
> to the process and posted it publicly on their own. The simple fact is
> that
> this DNSO.org is not making ANY effort until and unless it is backed into
> a
> corner and forced to do so.
>
See above
> So now, we must have competing DNSOs in order to force the final DNSO to
> be
> representative of all stakeholders in a substantive fashion.
>
To be frank, I am not surprised by the decision of ORSC to create a
competing DNSO (I could see this come by the change of attitude by Stef).
OTOH, I think that this will be beneficial.
It will teach me, for instance, how to make "substantial efforts" to bring
new constituencies in.
One of the problems DNSO.ORG has faced, and not resolved in a satisfactory
way so far, is how to let the interests of the Registries coexist with the
Trademark lawyers. If ORSC will be able to do this (in a satisfactory way),
they will have my sincere admiration.
Regards
Roberto