Gordon Cook says:
Milton, I agree with your assessment below.
as you can see from the following ISOC has in operation the same ballot box
stuffing procedure that it followed with ICANN and the various POSTEL
drafts.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:50:43 +0100
From: Lynn St.Amour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: U: DNSO APPLICATION PROCESS
Please find below an announcement from the DNSO Transition-team (of which I
am a member), setting out a process for the completion of the DNSO
application in line with ICANN's requirements. For more information,
please see http://www.dnso.org/ .
We are actively seeking comments on our proposal and want as broad a
participation as possible so you are encouraged to read the draft(s) and
send us your comments. It is also extremely important that we have as
broad a support base as possible (and in fact is a requirement of the ICANN
application process) and we are therefore especially interested in any
letters of support you or your organization may be able to give.
Best regards,
Lynn St.Amour
****************
DNSO APPLICATION TIMETABLE
Following on to the meetings held previously (see key dates below), and in
order to ensure that all interested parties have a common understanding of
the events leading up to the submission of a DNSO Application to the ICANN
Board of Directors on the 5th of February 1999, we are publishing the
following timetable for subsequent drafts and their related comment
periods.
We and other stakeholders are seeking to ensure integration of other
proposals (e.g. the 'INTA' proposal,
http://www.dnso.org/docs/dnso-draft-inta-bylaws.html , and any others which
may be forthcoming) with the DNSO proposal
http://www.dnso.org/docs/dnso-app-draft-1.html. Equally importantly, we
are also reviewing and will address any comments or concerns of other
stakeholders and to this end we again invite all interested parties to
participate (the more actively the better) in helping to prepare an
application. We will continue to actively seek out other relevant parties,
among them but not limited to, ORSC and NSI, etc. etc.
In order to achieve the objective of a representative, open and transparent
process in drafting the DNSO application, the discussions surrounding the
application have been, and will continue to be open and evolutionary, and
we continue to seek comments from all interested .....
>These kinds of comments have just about dissuaded me from any further
>comments on the DNSO
>proposals. It appears that while the more reasonable members of dnso.org
>were sincerely
>soliciting comment, it is evident that Crispin, Crocker, and others have
>utterly no
>intention of making any substantive changes. I am particularly upset by
>the manipulative
>character of the exchange quoted below.
>
>First, in an attempt to stem criticism of a special class of membership
>for the trademark
>special interest group, Crispin says its "perfectly reasonable" to create a
>counterbalancing constituency. I then call his bluff and ask him to do it.
>Suddenly,
>beeping noises emanate and he backs off. Suddenly, adding a new
>constituency is a horribly
>difficult, "gerrymandering" process that simply can't be done. (the fact
>that the current
>classification of members also constitutes a representation system
>gerrymandered to suit
>the interests of TM holders.
>
>Given this kind of response, why should anyone waste their time trying to
>convince
>dnso.org to make any substantive changes?
>
>The only response is to create an alternative dnso proposal and submit it
>to ICANN
>independently. I apologize to all who I urged to get involved in this
>travesty.
>--MM
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> > > So, it would be perfectly reasonable to creat the constituency you
>> > > describe. Mike Heltzer, the person that I understand did most of the
>> > > drafting of the INTA document, has suggested to me in private email
>> > > that there should be a "Free speech and Consumer Interests"
>> > > constituency, which I think would be a good idea.
>> >
>> > Unbelievably disingenuous. If you take the idea seriously, add that
>>constituency to
>> > your draft NOW. All it takes is a few strokes of the pen.
>>
>> Such an action would be totally irresponsible, under the
>> circumstances. It doesn't take a few strokes of the pen, it takes
>> consensus, or at least a strong majority, before such a thing can be
>> contemplated. Let me explain a bit further, since you seem somewhat
>> oblivious: Adding a new constituency is a non-trivial matter because
>> it changes representation patterns. I am in no position to
>> unilaterally gerrymander those through a casual stroke of the pen.
>>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>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____________________________________________
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet What Happened to the White Paper?
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ICANN a Sham. (updated 10/25/98) See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) http://www.cookreport.com/whorules.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
