Hi Ken and all --
What prey tell is the problem with this same very large bunch of
people exchanging EMail to get the same job done?
By my count you want to get at least 27 people together on a phone
call to edit text? Or to build a chart of differences and work on
reducing them. Or somethign like that. I have never wseen a
productive telecon with such numbers.
27 = (dennis, fay, bernie) + (jay & stef) + ((kent & amadeu)
+ (jon & mike) + (andrew & bret) + (bill semich & anthony van covering)
+ (don telage & david johnson) + (david maher) + (theresa swinehart)
+ (roger cochetti (software & browser people)) + (kilnam chon)
+ (ni quay nor) + (CIX) + (pswg) + (euroispa) + (icc) ...
In the meantime, Ellen Rony has already built the comparisons on her
web site, so lets just use them, rather than start over verbally
without benefit of visuals to do it all over again.
We are all here, so lets talk via EMail! In the same lenth of time
and with about the same number of messages as ti till take to arrange
the telecon, we could be at least half done before you have the
telecon arranged.
In short, in my view, it is time to use the medium we are trying to
organize. As in, "Why don't us dogs eat some of our own dog food?"
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:59:37 -0500:
}
}here is a copy of a suggestion I sent to andrew kraft to possible move this
}down the road...
}
}something for you all to chew on ...
}
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Ken Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:30 AM
}Subject: Re: Moving Forward
}
}
}>hello andrew..
}
}
}>it is my sincere feeling that the overwhelming number of the people who
}have been involved in the "process have their "hearts in the right place"
}>soo... assuming that to be the case ...........
}
}
}>my feeling is that it would be very good for the signatories & other
}key -parties to these 2 documents to teleconf
}>very soon to see if we can't get started on trying to sort out the areas
}>where we can get some agreement. i believe that we are close to 95% of the
}>way there and some the problems are in many cases "personality related'.
}>
}>hopefully most of those involved will listen and calm down long enough to
}>help something get hammered out.
}>
}>if we can get some people together in the next week i would propose
}>possibly a teleconf with the following parties
}>cctld's group # 1(dennis,fay,bernie)
}>orsc (jay & stef)
}>dnso (kent & amadeu)
}>itaa & inta (jon & mike)
}>yourself & bret
}>cctld's group #2 ( bill semich& anthony van covering)
}>don telage & david johnson
}>david maher
}>theresa swinehart
}
}>PSWG
}>roger cochetti (software & browser people)
}>kilnam chon
}>ni quay nor
}>CIX
}>pswg
}>euroispa
}>icc
}>i know i probably left some key parties out of this list but it is an error
}of omission not commission
}
}
}>the purpose of the call would be to try to get the parties to come up with
}a
}>priority list of what they see as the biggest problems with the 2 proposals
}>stratified by order of importance. we would then arrange to have working
}>groups assigned to the 3-4 biggest problems (frankly that's all i can find
}>between the two drafts). the working groups would be balanced on both sides
}>to see if compromises can be reached and would then recommend back to the
}>balance of the group the various compromises developed in the working
}groups. the
}>suggestions would then be posted on a neutral site for public comment (max
}5
}>days comment) and then incorporated into a final meld draft to be tweeked
}at
}>the meeting in singapore.
}>
}>the draft would then be presented for comment at the ICANN meeting and
}>simultaneously on the net along with any minority divergent opinions.
}>parties endorsing the draft would evidence their support at the icann
}>meeting and hopefully the tide would be high enough to push any minimal
}>dissenters along .
}>these are just my thoughts,
}>
}>hope some of them make sense to you
}>
}>ken
}>p.s. i know that is alot of people for a teleconf but i hope like hell
}after the initial teleconf the balance of the work would be done in working
}groups by phone & on the net (i really do believe that this could be
}accomplished in the time period left or at least moved along to the point
}where the balance of work coudl easily be done in less than one day in
}singapore).
}>
}
}
}
}>-----Original Message-----
}>From: Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 9:39 AM
}>Subject: Moving Forward
}>
}>
}>>Ken,
}>>
}>>Well, it seems that I am sitting here as one of the key sponsors of the
}>>Paris draft, which I feel is the better of the two drafts, although not by
}>>much. Both "sides", however seem to be taking snipes at each other
}>>personally in a public forum, something that doesn't get us anywhere and
}>>something that I find COMPLETELY unprofessional. :( I've sent a few emails
}>>out to folks asking them to tone it down and get down to the real
}>>discussions rather than personal attacks. But we'll see what happens
}there.
}>>
}>>So here's the question: How do you perceive this working out? According to
}>>Esther Dyson, the DNSO.org and Paris drafts are the only two drafts
}>>submitted before the deadline. Where do you want to see things go from
}>here?
}>>
}>>The Paris draft isn't perfect, even with the amendments that we've put
}>forth
}>>being put in place today or tomorrow. It has holes. So does the DNSO.org
}>>draft. How do we bring these together?
}>>
}>>Sincerely,
}>>Andrew
}>> the reasonable one. :)
}>>--
}>>Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP
}>>Executive Director, Association of Internet Professionals (AIP)
}>>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>>Phone: 310-724-6589
}>>More Info: http://www.association.org/
}>>
}>
}
