Hi Jay. With your permission I suppressed the cc's to Esther, Becky and co. I
have also suppressed the cc to ifwp, but only to prevent croossposted replays.
Feel free to froward this mail to that list, if you deem it appropriate
>
[...]
> >
> >We need to be able to come to an agreement with any other relevant group
> >that is working in parallel for building a DNSO. As an example, I understand
> >that ORSC is leaving the boat and will lead another group.
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> I am not aware of this having been decided yet.
>
Good to hear.
> I believe that it will depend on how things proceed
> from here. As it stands right now, many are feeling
> left out of the DNSO.ORG process.
This is pretty absurd, even if real. People might be unable to attend phisycal
meetings, and might be not subscirbed to this or that lust. But everyone is
able to read all the docs, and the current draft app has been around for a
while now. Everyone can comnet it or provide amendments, alternatives and
ratinales therefor.
All comments will be taken into account. All compromises will be tried.
Probably not achieved, as it is impossible that eveyone gets 100% of his/her
proposal. The result will be an application that will lie where the "critiacal
mass" of the relevant interests (all of them) accept to stop and support.
Maybe this is far form Jay's preferneces or from Amadeu's preerences, but only
time and "relative suport" will tell.
What is really noteworthy, but not at all new, is that there are lots of
people around screaming about exclusion, but few of them, if any has submitted
"concrete" disagreemnts or proposals. I, ofr one, will keep asking that we pay
less attention to noise, and more to arguments.
It appears that
> little of substance is being discussed on the discuss
> and/or participants list.
>
Well, we have a draft, and some comnets proposals. Some parties have said that
they would submit their coments, buyt we are still waiting. Don't blame thos
who have done theri homework, but those silent ;-)
> We have heard some vague references to discussions
> occurring between the INTA and the DNSO.ORG. Where
> are they occurring, and what is the current status?
It is not excatly between INTA ad DNSO.ORG, but between some
TM-related/comercial interests groups, somehow led by INTA and ICC and some of
the DNSO process participants. The current status is that we are waiting for a
telconf sometime this week in order to set the final details and be able to
announce it publicly and widely.
Besides that, Micahel Heltzer form INTA and some of the drafting team members
have maintanied mail excahnges directed to identify the main differneces (and
similarities) between our so-called Draft 3 (or seven, if you prefer) and
their proposed by-laws. I have also been copied to some of these mails. As I
have said, this was just "issue identification", and involved no negotiation
at all. Both docuemmts can be found at http://www.dnso.org
> Where can people find detailed information about the
> January meeting?
>
There is not such yet, Jay. PLZ understand that this meeting is NOT at all an
initiative originated within the DNSO process, even if it has been supported
by some of the DNSO-process participants.
I hope that we will be able to annojhnce more concrete details later this
week. Holidays do not help, certainly. But mark January 22 (Washington DC) in
red in your brand new 1999 agenda.
BTW, I insist in my earlier point: I am personally inclined to support and
participate in any initiatvie that could help all of us to convey consensus on
a widely accepted dnso app form. But meetings or no meetings is not the
question. Even less who orgnixe them or where they are hold. The real AND ONLY
issue is what each individual organisation and each interest group feel are
the major points such an app form shoulc contain, and what they could not
accept form the docs now on the table.
Unfortunately, within this ICC+ group only INTA has done so, and this before
the first teleconference.
> What is the transition Working Group, and how do
> people subscribe?
You can not subscribe, as this team or amillist is made up of those "selected"
by those present at the Monterrey meeting in order to carry out the so-called
"outreach program": ie, "selling" our consensus points, our (successive)
refined app forms and bringing more organisation aboard.
BTW, Stef was nominated, but declined as he considered that as chairman of
ORSC he could not deal in name of the group, but had instead to "be dealt
with" byt the transition team itslef (a curious position, that fortunately
enough no other present person or organisation took).
>
> For the rest of your comments, I think your suggestions
> are sound -- I hope the DNSO.ORG leadership is listening.
The DNSO process does not have such leadership. Indeed, as i acted as such for
the Barcelona meeting, and Oscar and the rest of the MTY team for the
Monterrey one. The we have two successive drafting teams, with some
overlapping names in them. And now a so-called transition team, where I
suppose some of the leadereship you metnion could rest.
But leasdership in such an informal process is work and ideas. And the
capacity to convince the rest of us.
Hope to be able to cmoe back with some news befoer the end of the year.
Amadeu