[...]
> >
> > We would like as broad a participation as possible and therefore we
> > encourage you to send in your comments NOW!
>
> Who is the "We" you speak of above?
We means the DNSO-process particpants, and more precisely, the so-called
Transition Team appoitned at the end of the Monterrey meeting. Among the tasks
of the transition team there are both carrying out an outreach program and
steering the application process on behalf of the so-called participants.
You will find more on that on the MTY meeting notes, posted long ago in our
website (http://www.dnso.org)
In order to facilitate your tasks, and as you are asking "who", I provide
below the hames of the members of such transition team
Kilham Chon
Bernard Turcotte
Fay Howard
Antony Van Couvering
Ken Stubbs
Amadeu Abril i Abril
Roberto Gaetano
Lynn St. Amour
Javier Sola
Marty Schwimmer
Tadao Takahashi
Rick Wesson
Michael Sondow
Pleae let me insist that those folks were appointed by thge MTY meeting
attendees to perform some tsks on their behalf. We don't claim to be albe to
don anything else than that. Specially not to bind our paritciapnts to any
action. Just to keep the process moving forward and be albe to submti an app
form by Feb 5
> Exactly who will determine which comments/suggestions are accepted and
> incorporated?
Well, as we need some drafts (legal docuemnts bring to write...) after each
meeting we appointed a "drafting team" cahrged of incorporating our so-called
"consensus poiints" and point out the gaps that needed to be filled.
Their taks is to incorprate consensus. If they go any further, providing
solutions they bring in in the first place, this cannot at any rate bind any
of the particpants.
As foir comments form those parties that have not pariticipated in the process
so far (meaning: they have not participated in the meetings, so thy have not
appoiinted the draftingteam), they will try to incorporate as many relevant
commenst that are not in clear conflict with our prior consensus. If they
thinkg that some amendments should be incoṛrated, even if they don't fit
within our prior consensus, they will make a recommendation to accept them.
but each organisation will decide at the very end if they feel confortable
with the final draft or not. If they do, they will support the application. If
not, they will not. No one can bind no one.
Again to save your time, I provide you the *current* compositon of the
drafting team, as changed after the MTY meeing:
Bill Semcih
Eberhard Lisse
Olivier Muron
Theresa Swinehart
David Maher
Kent Crispin
Besdes them, the meembers of the post-BCN drafting team that were not
re-appointed at MTY are also subscribed to their maillist as observers (Fay
Howard; Nii Quaynor; Kilham Chon; Amadeu Abril i Abril; MIchael Schneider).
> Who exactly is making these decisions, and with what authority.
??????
Pardon me??
Hope that some of the answers below provide at least a partial answer to that.
But let me repeat the crycial point:
The transition team tries to keep the process going on. It sets some timetable
it (we) think will help develop the application form.
The drafting team provides the drafts for discussion/agreemnet/rejection.
NOONE, attrening any of the physical meetings or not is bound by any of the
actions taken by either the transition or the drafting teams.
Our commitment is to have a process as opoen, trnsparent and inclusive as we
an afford/imagine. Our duty is to provied work on bhalf of the participants.
None of the teams as any aythority at all.
>
> It is time for the leadership of the DNSO.org process to reveal themselves and
> accept responsibility for their actions.
>
We will be resposnible of the evaluation of our work before those who
appointed us. Nothing more, William.
Remember that we only provide the work. The decision, the only decision (that
of supporting or not the appliation form) will be taken by EACH INDIVIDUAL
ORGANISATION. Habing attended or not any of the physical meeings. Haing sent
or not comments. Having particpated or not in the mailinglists.
> Who decides what each draft will include and what it will not, and how are
> these decisions being made?
See above.
>
> I have seen no voting mechanism in place for participants to use to declare
> support or opposition to compenents of the current public draft, or for the
> draft as a whole. Who is deciding which proposals and suggestions have
> significant support in the participants (or should I say so called
> participants?).
>
See above.
> I have asked these questions before, and I ask them again now.
Sorry, William, I have not seen them before. You will excuse me, but you tend
to send so many irrelevant personal attacks that sometimes I don't read all of
your e-mails ;-)
>
> It needs to be in the public eye exactly who is making these decisions and
> taking these actions in the name of a "open and fair" process, speaking for all
> of us "participants."
Neither me nor the transition team has ever claimed to speak in your name. But
I, and I guess all of we, would certailny love that at the end of the process
you feel confortable enough with its result (the application form) that you
support it too.
Best regards,
Amadeu