Amadeu and all,
Well this doesn't answer all of Williams questions, which you conveniently
edited out of this response Amadeu.
It is interesting that we are just now finding out whom is on this transition
team, you mention. Seems that this team was not selected in an open
and transparent manner this being the case....
How and what were the criterion n which this "Transition Team"
selected?
What particularly qualifies them for this task?
What is the task, in detail of this "Transition team"?
What powers do they have in decision making for this "Transition Team"?
Will there be VOTES taken on all aspects of the DNSO.ORG Draft by
the At-Large membership?
Has that membership been established?
What is the criterion for that At-Large membership prior to an approved
or determined final draft?
Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > On 02-Jan-99 Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
>
> [...]
> > >
> > > We would like as broad a participation as possible and therefore we
> > > encourage you to send in your comments NOW!
> >
> > Who is the "We" you speak of above?
>
> We means the DNSO-process particpants, and more precisely, the so-called
> Transition Team appoitned at the end of the Monterrey meeting. Among the tasks
> of the transition team there are both carrying out an outreach program and
> steering the application process on behalf of the so-called participants.
>
> You will find more on that on the MTY meeting notes, posted long ago in our
> website (http://www.dnso.org)
>
> In order to facilitate your tasks, and as you are asking "who", I provide
> below the hames of the members of such transition team
>
> Kilham Chon
> Bernard Turcotte
> Fay Howard
> Antony Van Couvering
> Ken Stubbs
> Amadeu Abril i Abril
> Roberto Gaetano
> Lynn St. Amour
> Javier Sola
> Marty Schwimmer
> Tadao Takahashi
> Rick Wesson
> Michael Sondow
>
> Pleae let me insist that those folks were appointed by thge MTY meeting
> attendees to perform some tsks on their behalf. We don't claim to be albe to
> don anything else than that. Specially not to bind our paritciapnts to any
> action. Just to keep the process moving forward and be albe to submti an app
> form by Feb 5
Don't you think that this app should be voted upon by the Stakeholders/users
prior to the submission to the ICANN in order to determine if there is
any kind of broad consensus? If not why not? IF so, when and how
do you believe this task should be performed?
>
>
> > Exactly who will determine which comments/suggestions are accepted and
> > incorporated?
>
> Well, as we need some drafts (legal docuemnts bring to write...) after each
> meeting we appointed a "drafting team" cahrged of incorporating our so-called
> "consensus poiints" and point out the gaps that needed to be filled.
You have NO consensus points unless you can document whom or
how many Stakeholders support any proposal. How does this "Transition
Team" envision making that determination?
>
>
> Their taks is to incorprate consensus. If they go any further, providing
> solutions they bring in in the first place, this cannot at any rate bind any
> of the particpants.
Than you cannot have a valid or legitimate proposal if this is the case.
>
>
> As foir comments form those parties that have not pariticipated in the process
> so far (meaning: they have not participated in the meetings, so thy have not
> appoiinted the draftingteam), they will try to incorporate as many relevant
> commenst that are not in clear conflict with our prior consensus. If they
> thinkg that some amendments should be incor�rated, even if they don't fit
> within our prior consensus, they will make a recommendation to accept them.
> but each organisation will decide at the very end if they feel confortable
> with the final draft or not. If they do, they will support the application. If
> not, they will not. No one can bind no one.
How does the "Drafting Team" envision binding amendments to the
Bylaws proposal? Under what specific conditions will this be done?
And will there be an online-voting ability to determine if there is support
from a broad number of Stakeholders, as the White Paper requires?
>
>
> Again to save your time, I provide you the *current* compositon of the
> drafting team, as changed after the MTY meeing:
>
> Bill Semcih
> Eberhard Lisse
> Olivier Muron
> Theresa Swinehart
> David Maher
> Kent Crispin
>
> Besdes them, the meembers of the post-BCN drafting team that were not
> re-appointed at MTY are also subscribed to their maillist as observers (Fay
> Howard; Nii Quaynor; Kilham Chon; Amadeu Abril i Abril; MIchael Schneider).
>
> > Who exactly is making these decisions, and with what authority.
>
> ??????
>
> Pardon me??
>
> Hope that some of the answers below provide at least a partial answer to that.
>
> But let me repeat the crycial point:
>
> The transition team tries to keep the process going on. It sets some timetable
> it (we) think will help develop the application form.
>
> The drafting team provides the drafts for discussion/agreemnet/rejection.
What about proposed or other OPEN input for potential amendments?
How would that be facilitated? Is there a method for doing so? If not,
why not? If so, where is it documented?
>
>
> NOONE, attrening any of the physical meetings or not is bound by any of the
> actions taken by either the transition or the drafting teams.
>
> Our commitment is to have a process as opoen, trnsparent and inclusive as we
> an afford/imagine. Our duty is to provied work on bhalf of the participants.
> None of the teams as any aythority at all.
> >
> > It is time for the leadership of the DNSO.org process to reveal themselves and
> > accept responsibility for their actions.
> >
> We will be resposnible of the evaluation of our work before those who
> appointed us. Nothing more, William.
Whom appointed whom? What authorization did they have in appointing
anyone?
>
>
> Remember that we only provide the work. The decision, the only decision (that
> of supporting or not the appliation form) will be taken by EACH INDIVIDUAL
> ORGANISATION. Habing attended or not any of the physical meeings. Haing sent
> or not comments. Having particpated or not in the mailinglists.
>
> > Who decides what each draft will include and what it will not, and how are
> > these decisions being made?
>
> See above.
> >
> > I have seen no voting mechanism in place for participants to use to declare
> > support or opposition to compenents of the current public draft, or for the
> > draft as a whole. Who is deciding which proposals and suggestions have
> > significant support in the participants (or should I say so called
> > participants?).
> >
> See above.
>
> > I have asked these questions before, and I ask them again now.
>
> Sorry, William, I have not seen them before. You will excuse me, but you tend
> to send so many irrelevant personal attacks that sometimes I don't read all of
> your e-mails ;-)
Likely excuse. At any rate, you could review the archives, correct?
If you and the Drafting Team and the Transition team haven't, why haven't
they?
>
> >
> > It needs to be in the public eye exactly who is making these decisions and
> > taking these actions in the name of a "open and fair" process, speaking for all
> > of us "participants."
>
> Neither me nor the transition team has ever claimed to speak in your name. But
> I, and I guess all of we, would certailny love that at the end of the process
> you feel confortable enough with its result (the application form) that you
> support it too.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Amadeu
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
