Re: DNSO APPLICATION TIMETABLE

William X. Walsh (william@wxweb.qnis.net)
Sun, 03 Jan 1999 12:31:32 -0800 (PST)

On 03-Jan-99 Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>
>> Hello Amadeu,
>>
>> Might I point out that, although The time period encompasses almost two
>> weeks, those two weeks are probably the busiest two weeks of the year, what
>> with two major holidays, EOY accounting and holiday staff reductions.
>> Although I understand the dilemma, it is no time for such shanannigans. You
>> will not get quality input from this. It would be better to allow another
>> business week. Has someone commented to ICANN that the time period is too
>> short for quality work?
>
> Yes, Roeland, these are the busiest two weeks in the year. And the last two
> years have been probably the busiest to years in the lifes of some of us.....
>
> BTW, I would like pointing out some points that I have made to other
> people/lists:
>
> * The message I sent yesterday is a timetable, not exactly a call for
> comments. Not just that. It sets our guess of the best schedule in order to
> have an application ready before Feb 5 (not an easy task).

"It sets our guess...."

Exactly WHO's guess? Who is leading this effort and making these decisions?

> * In this regard, there is NO deadline on Jan 5. We announce a new draft, and
> simply remind everyone that come nts sent to the *current* craft will MOST
> PROBABLY NOT BE TREATED in this next draft, to by published on Jan 12.
> Perhaps
> they are, but for obvious time reasons they risk to be reviewed later.

"We announce a new draft...."

WHO announces? Once again, who is making these decisions, supposedly on behalf
of us "participants" ?

> * Even if it was a real deadline, it would have been a 21-days deadline, not
> a
> three-days one. Please be aware that the previous draft was published and
> distributed on Dec 16, even if it had hit many lists a few days before....
> Since them we have been encouraging comments.

"Since them we have been....."

That term we again, yet no one is able to exactly pin point who is referred to
here. Please spell out the leadership structure of this process.

> * In fact it was expected that the 18 days already lapsed since the
> publication
> of our last draft (and even more for the INTA draft byalws) were more than

"...our last draft..."

Does this speak to the leadership, has THEIR draft, or a draft of the
participants? I've seen no real effort to get a vote from the participants, so
this draft must be a draft of the positions of the self proclaimed leadership,
since there also has been no voting by the participants on who should be in the
leadership.

> enough for most responsible organisations and more interested people in order
> to
> have an idea about what thy like/dislike/miss in these docs. Everyone knows
> form
> at least the end of last summer that a DNSO had to be created, and the most
> responsible entites have been wroking very hard on this effort. The fact that
> ICANN
> exists, that it calls for a DNSO and that this has to be wroked out by the
> interested
> parties as it will not fall form heaven are clear facts to you, myeslef and
> everynone
> else. I fail two see your call for delay, based in your wrok burdens during
> the next
> two weeks. In fact, it will be tha drafting team that will work very yard for
> all of
> us. Then we will re-start shooting at them ;-)

"Then we will re-start shooting at them"

That ever elusive word "we" again.

I sure wish we can figure out exactly who Amadeu is speaking for.

----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@wxweb.qnis.net>
Date: 03-Jan-99
Time: 12:25:24
----------------------------------