Jonathan and all,
Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I'm sure we'll post our round of questions and answers to as many existing
> lists as make sense and whose owners don't mind.
This is fine as far as it goes, which is not far enough to be open and
Transparent in keeping with the White Paper requirements. As a
One-Way method of developing input, by definition what the Berkman
Center seems to have designed from your comment here, is not
by definition and Open or Transparent process.
> Domain-policy, orsc, and
> ifwp, not to mention any list the ICANN membership committee might set up,
> seem right, though I'm not fond of cross-posting generally, and after this
> message will stop doing so--sticking just to IFWP--even as you're posting
> to lots of different lists and addressees in your replies. Since anyone's
> free to volunteer, and we're sending the questions to those volunteers, and
> then posting all the replies on the net and digests to the lists for
> further discussion, I honestly don't understand how this fails the test of
> openness and transparency. ...JZ
See above comment for your answer. And further, we believe that
only asking questions originating form a ONE -WAY process which you
have designed it should be obvious that this cannot meet and Open
or Transparent process as required in the White Paper.
>
>
> At 09:07 PM 12/30/98 , you wrote:
> >Jonathan,
> >
> >Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff,
> >>
> >> I suppose in this charged environment it's easy to find anything
> >> disingenuous, but I'd hate to be restricted to an open mailing list as
> >the
> >> sole means of gathering input electronically.
> >
> > I am not, nor did I in my post, suggest in any restricting anything to
> >and OPEN mailing list in and of itself. I am saying that an open
> >mailing list should be part of the input as well, in other words,
> >inclusive.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The idea is to ping our volunteers with questions on a regular basis,
> >post
> >> the complete ongoing results on our web site, and send a digested
> >version
> >> of the answers, along with the original questions, to an existing
> >public
> >> list.
> >
> > And this idea is fine, but yet incomplete as there already exists
> >additional mailing lists to which not all of the same people are
> >subscribed to. In order to achieve the broadest input in TWO-WAY
> >process it would be advantageous that any and all individuals that
> >can possibly be reached at least the best and broadest attempt to
> >do so would be desirable. Your and the Berkman Centers process
> >in therefore incomplete or does not consider these factors adequately
> >in our opinion. We also find that what you and the Berkman center
> >is suggesting is designed, judging from this comment, to purposefully
> >restrict input, questions in a ONE-WAY method and also purposefully
> >does NOT seek the broadest of input that can easily enough, be achieved
> >
> >> That avoids creating yet another list--to which some will simply cc
> >> along with all the others; your original message is a good example of
> >> that--and uses the existing ones to get more input with a chance to
> >answer
> >> the questions with some insights already in place.
> >
> > Yes, and cc'ing is a good thing in this instance as it keeps as many
> >people
> >that have interest in these issues on the same page, so to speak and
> >well
> >as having the potential of broadening awareness and information as
> >possible.
> >What it appears to be the Berkmans Center effort here is attempting is
> >to restrict that input and narrow the audience purposefully.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'll remove you from our list of volunteers if you're no
> >longer
> >> interested. ...JZ
> >
> > I never indicated I was not interested. So please do not remove me.
> >What ever gave you that idea from my original post on this thread pray
> >tell?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> At 07:12 PM 12/30/98 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >John and all,
> >> >
> >> >john wilbanks wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Greetings and thank you for expressing interest in the Berkman
> >> >Center's
> >> >> study of possible membership structures for ICANN.
> >> >>
> >> >> Over the coming weeks, you should expect to receive questions from
> >the
> >> >> Berkman Center on a regular basis. The questions will reflect
> >issues
> >> >and
> >> >> themes for the study, and we welcome your input on each question.
> >An
> >> >> edited digest of the answers from the group of volunteers will be
> >> >posted to
> >> >> the at-large ICANN list on membership as "seeds" of discussion on a
> >> >regular
> >> >> basis.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is not a mailing list. Rather, you are part of a group of
> >> >interested
> >> >> individuals whom the Berkman Center plans to ask for input into the
> >> >study
> >> >> on an individual basis. Please do not send regular email to the
> >> >Center on
> >> >> this topic unless it is in response to a Center request for
> >> >information or
> >> >> a response to a posted question -- at least one forum for public
> >> >discussion
> >> >> of the membership issue will be the at-large ICANN membership
> >mailing
> >> >list,
> >> >> which Berkman staff will monitor for input (along with the IFWP,
> >ORSC,
> >> >and
> >> >> other related lists).
> >> >
> >> > This request, John seems a bit contrived and in to a great degree
> >in
> >> >violation to the white paper, as it does not provide for either a
> >> >compleatly
> >> >transparent or open process. It is easy to understand why the
> >Berkman
> >> >center along with the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board would wish or
> >> >choose
> >> >to use such a contrived and controlled process. That being that is
> >does
> >> >not provide for two way input form "Interested Parties" in a straight
> >> >forward and honest manner. Please take note that we ( INEGroup )
> >> >find this approach or method disingenuous and inapropriate and wish
> >to
> >> >go on record in expressing this.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Watch your inbox over the next few days for the first set of
> >> >informational
> >> >> requests and announcements, and thanks again for your interest in
> >this
> >> >> study.
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
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____________________________________________
