Re: DNSO worries

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:40:07 +1200

At 18:51 11/01/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>Joop,
<snip>
>This is plain difficult. I was a long time contributor to the DNSO
>discussions and was very fortunate in finding a sponsor to go to MTY.
>
>I would have wanted to be included in the decision making process
>(including vote) if I hadn't. However My understanding is that
>DNSO.ORG should be run by consensus, if possible.
>
>I think one must differentiate between people who want to be members
>of the DNSO.ORG and those who don't. The latter must not be excluded
>from the decision making process on the one hand, but on the other,
>where does it end?
>
>DNOS.ORG is an organization that is trying to become THE "DNSO".
>
>If some contributors can't accept certain parts of the MTY consensus,
>well that's too bad, there are other applicants.
>
>That said, however, I want to see all of them come on board to a
>create the truely open, fair, transparent and neutral "DNSO" that many
>of us want.
>
Eberhart,

You are clearly of two minds about who presently make up the membership.
You are also aware that many of the current participants in the discussion
are of two minds about joining "the" DNSO.
Monterrey came up with constituencies; many , including myself, do not
think this is the best way.Our input is listened to, yes, but you fret
"where does it end".

"Too bad, there are other applicants" is not the way to bring them on board.

You MUST broaden your base not only for a successful application but even
more for a successful functioning of your DNSO.

>> And only a draft that is as inclusive as possible will attract this
>> broad base. Without it, there is no legitimacy, no mandate and only
>> the accusation of hypocrisy for having a discuss@dnso.org list that
>> key participants are not even subscribed to.
>
>Yes, agreed.
>
>> Was the discuss list only created to pay lip service to the idea of
>> further input?
>
>Looks like it to me.
>
>> Was it symptomatic that substantial comments made by "outsiders" on
>> the discuss list were ignored by "participants" and "drafters" and
>> not even included in Anthony's summary? (my apologies to Anthony if
>> it was just an honest oversight)
>
>No, I do not think it was symptomatic. I am sure that it was an
>unintentional oversight. I trust Anthony.
>
>> Now the draft is going to be put up for a vote by "the membership", who
>> will have the vote?
>
>I am a member of the MTY Drafting Team, which has a mandate to draft
>an application that can be submitted to the DNSO. I intend to see that
>this mandate is carried out.
>
>> All participants to the discuss list? I asked this question before and
>> Roberto had trouble answering it.
>
>I would hope that the Drafting Team can come up with a consensus, eg
>an application that is accepteable to so many that no formal vote will
>be necessary. And I have made proposals to the Drafting Team to
>facilitate this.
>
This is too vague, Eberhard. You will have a bonfight about quantifying
"acceptable to so many".
If your application is really going to be so acceptable to so many, then
why do you need to be afraid that it will not be legitimised in an open
vote on your discuss list?

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/