That is exactly what Mikki did for ORSC. So, as I see it, the ORSC
draft may have already done the job you are arguing about "how to do".
It is hard to know however, as the next DNSO.ORG draft is being kept
secret until it is completed.
And, at this point, Mikki and some others are about to embark on a
next round of ORSC draft edits to include still more comments that
have appeared on the scene. This work will be done in the open as was
the prior draft.
We (of ORSC, et al) do not follow the precept that new drafts should
be generated in private with a big unveiling when complete. That is
the mode of drafting used by IAHC and others, with poor consensus
attracting results. ORSC does no choose to go that route. That way
there be dragons of exactly the kind that this thread is enouncering.
So, I have to ask, to what extent does our ORSC draft already meet the
expectations of the next DNSO.ORG draft, if it is trying to do the
same thing? (Yes, we know it is not really finished yet!)
Are you all sure you are not just redoing Mikki's completed work? If
you are doing this to seek consensus, I expect you very well might be
redoing the ORSC work. So, maybe you all woudl rather just join the n
next round of ORSC editing. It will be done completely in the open,
just like last time.
Also, we only have the same sized window of 3 working days. At your
current rate of progress in this thread, you will not yet have fond
consensus on how to proceed with editing before it is too late.
In case you are wondering, the secret is to "Just Do It" (TM Nike),
and if done in the open, and with daily cycles, it can be made to
converge very quickly. It is only when you try do it in a restricted
environement that you get into these messy kinds of arguments.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:02:59 -0500:
}
}Mikki Barry:
}>
}> At 8:34 PM +0200 1/13/99, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
}> >In message <v04003a87b2c291b7b33e@[207.87.121.93]>, Mikki Barry writes:
}> >> >> So, as I argued successfully in another post, Mikki Barry (or anyone
}> >> >> else with a contrary position) can also be on the drafting team.
}> >> >
}> >> >I am too tired to go through this now (I had a very long operating
}> >> >list and a large clinic in the afternoon), has she asked to be on the
}> >> >Drafting Team?
}> >>
}> >> Actually, I asked to be added to the transition list, the drafting list,
}> >> and the participants list months ago and received no response.
}> >
}> >On behalf of ORSC?
}>
}> Not necessarily. On behalf of myself. I am involved with several groups,
}> including ORSC, BWG, and DRNC.
}
}I beg your pardon, Eberhard (and everyone else on the DNSO drafting team),
}but interrogating Mikki Barry is just not on. You say you're for fairness,
}equality, and cooperation? Mikki Barry has done as much as any person
}involved to help this process, and probably more than most. She has written
}a fine DNSO application proposal, for a group that has as much legitimacy as
}the DNSO.org (I mean the ORSC), and we should be heppy to have her on board,
}if she'll deign to grace us with her presence.
}
}It's not for anyone here to pretend that they're in a position of authority,
}to be interrogating Mikki Barry about her credentials for serving on the
}drafting committee. You should roll out the carpet for her, and be darned
}pleased if she'll join us.
}
}If you try to keep out of the DNSO the ORSC and all its adherents, you are
}marginalizing and dooming the DNSO, because ICANN does nothing without
}consulting them, and if push comes to shove they're going to get more
}support from the larger community than us.
}
}Put her on the drafting team if she wants to join it and has the time to
}spare us. And stop pretending that you're the DNS authority.