On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 01:00:24PM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hello Kent -- I must say that your EMail persona is quite opposite
> from your face persona. You never speak in such harsh, nasty and mean
> tones in face to face discussions. At least not when I or Jay are
> present. Perhaps you already know this.
Harsh, nasty, and mean??? I said Jay was disingenuous, as I
recall... Of course, pointing out inaccuracies frequently looks
harsh to those promulgating the inaccuracies.
> Your clear intent, as I read your message, is to accuse us of being
> dishonest, and therefore you are attempting to diminish ORSC in the
> eyes of the public, of ICANN, and of the US Government.
I can't deny that I think that some ORSC members have on occasion
acted with less than the highest standards of personal integrity.
For example, I think that is clearly reflected in those individuals'
baseless attacks on the openness of the Barcelona/Monterrey effort.
> Now, Jay is exactly right, in that his original message enclosed below
> was sent in response to my open ORSC mailing list request for volunteer
> members of a new bylaw drafting team, and Roberto's message was
> politely asking Jay if ORSC was already actively working on new
> DNSO.COM bylaws.
Jay is exactly wrong, and you have misrepresented what Roberto said.
What Roberto actually said was: "I understand that ORSC is leaving
the boat and will lead another group."
> The correct answer is no, not yet!
No, Einar, the correct answer is that you, personally, have set in
motion the creation of an alternate DNSO process. It was a mail
message of *yours* that first started it going, and *you* were the
one calling for volunteers. You are now trying to conceal this by
the verbal gimmick of saying that nothing has *really* been decided,
and by the not-so-subtle misdirection of saying that since your
drafting team hasn't actually started editing documents, you aren't
*really* doing anything. But that is just semantic word play. It is
perfectly clear what you are doing.
Here's a quote from one of your kick-off mail messages on the topic:
================begin mail message excerpt================
From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 16:38:21 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is this what we *really* want to do?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Roeland, and all
My proposal is that ORSC get set up with DNSO.net for operational
root distribution stuff, et al, and get set up with DNSO.com for
Discussion, WWW pages, etc.
Proposed goals and objectives are:
1. Form a very broad consensus proposal for how to run the
DNSO.
2. Incorporate it, so that further negotiations with ICANN, if
any, will be corp-to-corp contract negotiations.
3. Create bylaws and Corp policies by collecting ideas and text from
as many sources as possible and melding for adoption by DNSO.COM,
Inc.
4. Appoint a broadly representative Board of Initial Founding
Directors to deal with adoption of bylaws, exstablishment of
memberships, and negotiation with ICANN, if any.
5. Initial Board Members will not decide DNS policy issues, but will
create and establish various advisory panels and membership
structures, and collect evidence of strong consensus support for
presentation to the community in support of its claims to
represent its constituencies.
6. And what ever else we decide to do.
To kick this poff, I would like to form up a drafting committee to
collect input and prepare draft bylaws.
...
================end mail message excerpt================
This message was only six days ago, so it's not surprising that the
actual editing of bylaws hasn't started. But it is a fairly strong
indication that you have indeed made a "decision".
> I have received some positive responses like Jay's, but we have not
> yet formed any ORSC drafting team or started any work.
On the contrary. Here's a quote from a later mail message from
Roeland that clearly indicates that work is underway:
================begin mail message excerpt================
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:30:22-0800
To: "Open RSC List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DNSO.NET
I just finished some updates to www.dnso.net
1) All logos/marks/badges have been removed. They were Linux/Apache
thingies that some here have objected to. No problem, they are now
gone. I have one request, I would dearly love to put a Caldera
button on there somewhere, since COL is what it's running on, MHSC is
a Caldera VAR. Where could I place such a button. If I hear any
objections, I will withdraw my request.
2) I am setting up Majordomo v1.94 to run dnso.net lists now. I will
also be installing MajorCool or LWGATE. Archiving will also be
enabled. I'd like to hear preferences for either one, or yet a
third, if it's reasonably documented. My requirement is
documentation first, then performance/features. It's got to work
with sendmail/majordomo and virtual domain setups.
3) We need to start talking about DNSO.NET charter. IMHO, I think it
should precede by-law or Article discussions because the charter sets
the direction and focus without which we'll get wrapped around the
axle of article and b'law arguments until the cows come home. This
is a lot like a Mission Statement. This is also what's missing in
the DNSO.ORG discussions, IMHO.
more later ...
================end mail message excerpt================
> We have some
> major parts already in place, with some old bylaws that need major
> rework to focus on DNSO affairs, plus an unused DE corporate shell
> (cost under $200), and a significant number of ORSC participants who
> are interested in a more open and accountable DNS Coordination
> Management Functional Organization than DNSO.ORG appear to offer.
>
> If you continue to behave in such an obviously hostile mode and mood,
> you will surely encourage more people to join our efforts. You would
> be much better off to work on your DNSO.ORG initiatives to find ways
> to encourage ORSC participants to join your efforts instead of our
> own. I expect your message here will stimulate us to greater effort.
I'm sorry you think I am being hostile. It is true that I utterly
despise dishonesty, and it is true that I am quite tired of the loud
and baseless attacks that come from certain parties in ORSC -- people
who complain bitterly about how closed the Barcelona/Monterrey
process has been, and turn around and praise ORSC for its "openness"
-- when ORSC is actually *less* open. I find that somewhat
frustrating, and it probably comes out in my writing.
But it is perfectly clear from the excerpts above that you have
already decided on an alternate DNSO effort, regardless of any
hostility I may exhibit.
> Perhaps you consider your comments here and otherwise to be some kind
> of "reaching out" to encourage ORSC join your effort. But, you should
> read your own mail and ask yourself if you would join your own effort.
>
> Quite frankly, we (ORSC) would be delighted to have DNSO.ORG open
> itself up to more public view and offer more public accountability, so
> ORSC would not feel compelled to create alternative DNSO plans.
This is, of course, utter bullshit, and it is *exactly* the kind of
baseless attack I am referring to.
DNSO.org is honestly open, and has gone to a hell of a lot of trouble
to organize meetings so that a wide range of stakeholders can
participate. Lot's of *real* input has been gathered -- the kind of
stuff you get by arguing out compromises for hours. In the notes for
the Monterrey meeting there was a facetious reference to taking a
break to watch the meteor shower in the early morning darkness -- for
a while it seemed like we would really have to put in those kind of
hours. There was so much work to do...
Whereas with ORSC I am reminded of a movie set with a bunch
of fronts for buildings -- "Oh -- we need a DNSO now -- let's just
pull some of those pieces from over there, throw some new paint on
it, and we will have a DNSO! Be sure to paint the word 'open' on it
several times!"
But actually, ORSC's actions are completely understandable. At the
center of ORSC is a single primary issue: getting proprietary TLDs in
the root (which would of course lend weight to the idea of a
proprietary .com). Any result that doesn't adhere to that position
is essentially a total loss for ORSC, and so ORSC has nothing
whatsoever to lose by trying an alternative effort.
> Your EMail actions are strangely focused on driving ORSC away.
My email actions are focused on the truth.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
