At 01:55 AM 12/29/98 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 01:00:24PM -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>> 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.
>From my view, the statements were not baseless. Internal vs external lists,
private drafting of documents with no review time. In fact, the very
creation of the DNSO.ORG itself was almost a clone of the ICANN virgin
birth. Nothing was socialized prior to the event.
>> 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."
Roberto may mis-understand something. BTW, I seem to detect you taking this
somewhat personally.
>> 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.
As far as I can tell, I am the only one actually working on something
regarding this. I am building the infrastructure to make it possible.
Nothing else of substance is started yet.
>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:
...
>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
Have you actually *looked* at the web-site? That's actually a rhetorical
question. I can't find songbird.com *anywhere* in my access logs. Are you
using a different host maybe?
>================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.
It is much more open than efforts have been in orgs that you've been
involved with in the past. The fact that you criticize without even looking
says volumes about your integrity, for example. So, I would be careful
about throwing around slurs, if I were you. Especially when you don't know
what you're talking about. Your frustration comes from your own mind.
>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.
There is very little that has been decided, by anyone. The only work has
been involved with supportive infrastructure. Should DNSO.ORG change some
of its ways, I am sure DNSO.NET will either transform or fall into dis-use.
>> 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.
Actually, Stef's comments were quite well based. Others, within your own
org, have regretted your orgs actions in many of these matters.
>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
>a while it seemed like we would really have to put in those kind of
>hours. There was so much work to do...
Yeah, so you've worked hard. I commend you. But. so have I and many others
you won't listen to. We've worked for *years* building cases and
justifications and business models. You *still* hold irrationally to your
closed-minded concept that the only good TLD is a non-proprietary shared
one, to the exclusion of all other models. Sheesh, I thought I was stubborn
<sigh>. When are you going to learn that there is some real resistance to
your bureaucratic view of the Internet. You are not exhibiting much in the
way of learning behaviour.
>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.
Yes, your view will not fly, on an exclusive basis. Other models have to be
tried. You don't have all the answers and ORSC doesn't either, however they
need to be tried. You won't let anyone try and that's wrong, IMHO. After
all these years, we are tired of being ignored. Yes, you are correct, it is
a total loss for any org to continue to work with those that are absolutely
against all their principles and goals, beyond all reason. We have all
tried to get y'all to listen and you won't hear. Then y'all go trotting off
claiming that y'all have consensus. Consensus my eye, after you've left
tread-marks up everybodies back-sides from having run them over.
Then, when a real serious faction is fed up with the whole shebang, you
castigate them for not going along with being railroaded. Have you finally
got a clue yet? There is some real dissent here. It has been gaining
strength ever since y'all did the IAHC/MoU/gTLD stunt.
If you don't start to seriously listen to ORSC views, and soon, you will
never be able to claim consensus. We are willing to get down on the horse
balnket and talk turkey, always have been. But, after years of trying, and
getting absolutely nowhere, we're trying a different tact.
>> Your EMail actions are strangely focused on driving ORSC away.
>
>My email actions are focused on the truth.
Your e-mail actions are focused on two things, pluging your own ears so you
can't hear sense and shouting loud enough to drown out anyone else's view.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
-- Thomas Jefferson
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
