Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> - snip -
>
> 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.
Is it baseless that the "Participants List" usage was ucerpt by
Robert Shaw in a selective manner by allowing Joe Simms on that
list without attending the Barcelona/Monterrey meetings and not allow
others that also did not attend Kent? This is the one of several reasons
why another DNSO effort is underway. The FACT that the DNSO.ORG
bunch cannot adhere to the openness and transparency from the outset
as required in the White Paper by having CLOSED lists for the discussion
of important issues dealing with DNS is yet another reason as well.
>
>
> > 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 ORSC is not LEADING the new DNSO.NET group at all. It is
however involved actively. Everyone is invited to participate in an
TRULY open and transparent process of the DNSO.NET, should they
choose to.
>
>
> > 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.
Again as usual Kent, you are wrong. It was I that started this in motion
with this post as a suggestion (See below here): Note the date differences
between post dates of my post and Kents reference...
=================begin of the original post of a new DNSO ===========
Subject:
IS it time for a new DNSO?
Date:
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:17:33 +0000
From:
jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization:
INEGroup INC.
To:
IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Domain policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
DNSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ICANN Comments <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jones Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed
All,
Due to recent events in the formation of a DNSO at www.dnso.org,
one is almost forced to ask, "Is it time for a new DNSO?" Some on these
lists have already indicated as much. Lets look at the facts as we know
them now.
Current proposed DNSO:
1. Robert Shaw (ITU) has add "Selectively" some folks to the
"Participants" list that did not attend the Montery meeting, which was the
criterion for being on that list. Is this an example of Openness as the
current Proposed DNSO espouses? Seems like it is not...
2.) The Current DNSO Draft 7 was not discussed in an open forum.
Rather it was only discussed as to the language on the
"Participants" list. Is this in keeping with their own statement of
openness?
Doesn't sound much like that, does it?
3.) The current in my first read and judging from comments from a
number of others on the only OPEN DNSO mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well as comments made on the IFWP list,
seems very colusionary and obvious attempt at gerrymandering
with regards to Constituencies is indicated. Not to mention
several inconsistencies within the Draft 7 itself in its own language.
4.) Joe Simms added to the "Participants List" of the DNSO at
www.dnso.org as an assist to to DNSO from a legal standpoint.
This is particularly troubling as it seems also colusionary in
that Joe Simms of Jones & Day is also representing the ICANN
and ISI. Is the "FIX" in here?
5.) Where were the registrations of the Votes as to the language of the
current draft 7? Does the Membership have a vote as to whether
this draft is expectable to any and all members? Who are the
members?
Is there a membership list? What are the criterion for "At Large"
membership? should there be ANY criterion for a membership.
How is this draft 7 complying with the White Paper. Does it
comply with the White Paper?
These are all concerns that many have been asking and as their is no
established leadership of their current DNSO at www.dnso.org one might
want to consider that an completely different alternative to be
considered. If so, Richard Sexton has registered DNSO.COM that
could be used for this purpose. All that is required is for someone to
take that Domain over from Richard, as I am sure that he will be happy
to comply. Than possibly a REAL DNSO can commence....
Kindest regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
============== end of original suggestion of a new dnso post =======
>
>
> 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.
It is not clear at all Kent. In fact you refrence, which I pointed out
above is
both innacurate and off base to that conclusion.
>
>
> -snip -
>
> 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.
If DNSO.ORG is so open Kent, why is there a need to have CLOSED
lists?
> 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!"
A totla misrepresentation by yourself Kent. You really should discontinue
this tyoe of disenginious diatribe.
>
>
> - snip of more of Kents nonsense -
>
>
>
> My email actions are focused on the truth.
Your truth maybe. But notTHE 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____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
