happy holidays:
i would very much like to get to the root of this concern.
would someone like to please send me a list of who specifically requested
and was denied subscriptions to the list mentioned.
please include approximate request dates as this will assist me on a
follow-up.
thanks for your co-operation
ken stubbs
>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
>
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
