You wrote:
> In light of the past few days of comments, let's just shine a mirror on
> your message, with a few words replaced (see caps)
>
> I must protest this proposed JANUARY 21 MEETING with DNSO.ORG "SPONSORS
> AND
> INVITEES". This is a matter some importance, and of wide interest to
> many people. Privileged, closed access for the DNSO.ORG SPONSORS is
> simply not
> fair to all these other interested parties, and is in fact completely
> at odds with the values that DNSO claims to hold.
>
I agree, with one caveat.
The January 21 meeting is not with DNSO.ORG "Sponsors and Invitees", but
with ITAA "Sponsors and Invitees" (see
http://www.itaa.org/ecomm/calpro/idncinv.htm).
Because of the very fact that we (DNSO.ORG) believe that "Privileged, closed
access for the DNSO.ORG [in fact, ITAA] SPONSORS is simply not fair to all
these other interested parties, and is in fact completely at odds with the
values that DNSO claims to hold", as you rightfully say, we tried all what
was in our power to make the meeting more representative as possible of all
constituencies.
As you may know, CORE (one of the evil "invitees") proposed to ORSC to
participate to that meeting using a seat otherwise allocated to CORE by the
organizers. Analogous actions are being taken right now by other "invitees"
(I know because I contacted a couple personally), so that at the end we may
have a good part of the Internet represented.
It's not perfect, but it's better than before.
What you state is a concern that DNSO.ORG has, but our line of action is to
act positively to overcome or at least reduce the shortcomings rather than
complaining about (I am not at all suggesting that you do, I am speaking
generally here).
Always nice to talk to you.
Roberto