So those unable or unwilling to attend this face to face meeting had (and
continue to have) no input as to the make up of the decision making bodies of
the DNSO.org. Sounds very non-exlusionist and open and fair to me. (sarcasm
intended)
>> 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.
OK, so comments/suggestions from those participants who did not attend your
face to face meetings are welcome as long as they do not conflict with the
consensus of the small subset of stakeholders who DID attend your face to face
meeting. Once again, sounds very non-exclusionist and fair and open. (Can you
see a pattern here?)
> 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.
Provided those participants attended your face to face meetings. All other
participants have been, and continue to be treated, as second class members of
your organization.
>>
>> 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.
So you admit to only being interested in the support of the stakeholders who
attended your meetings?
Another example of this fair and open process that claims to not be exlusionist
in its actions?
> 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 ;-)
I have never made any personal attacks here. I have and will continue to point
out where this ORGANIZATION is not meeting its mandate.
I can understand why you would want to ignore comments that attend to that fact.
>>
>> 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.
To be the leadership of the "Domain Names Supporting Organization" you must be
speaking for the stakeholders your organization would claim to represent. I
think it quite apparent this is not the case currently.
This is not to say that some of the results of this process are not positive.
Kent's recent posting regarding online voting and the issues surrounding it was
quite informative and productive.
But this DNSO has not yet sought significant consensus from its public
participants.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@wxweb.qnis.net>
Date: 03-Jan-99
Time: 14:20:35
----------------------------------