Milton Mueller a �crit:
>
> I stand corrected. What I meant was that the leadership of the dnso.org
> is attempting to do this.
Thanks for modifying that comment. I feel badly about all these polemics
going on to the utter obliviousness of most of the people who actually make
up dnso.org. There has been a lot of commentary on this list about the
confusing and not altogether straightforward situation of the dnso.org
lists, but most of it has been concerned with limitations on interactivity
caused by the inability of non-participants to subscribe to the dnso.org
participants (and other) lists. The practical truth is that that lamentable
list has functioned conversely: it's the participants, the majority of whom
are only subscribed to the participants list, who haven't had access to
these discussions, rather than those not on that list missing something
there.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make things any better, since the virtual
exclusion of the majority of the dnso.org participants (their own choice,
after all, since they could subscribe to discuss or ifwp or domain-policy if
they chose) tends to limit discussions of the dnso.org to the organizers and
drafting team, who don't determine policies and consensus in dnso.org, and
can only express their personal beliefs and prejudices, just like everyone
else.
I guess my point is that we shouldn't lose sight of the fifty to a hundred
dnso participants who attended meetings and helped shape the draft
application, but who have never intervened in these discussions on the
public lists. They have been in an even more restricted position than the
ifwp list members, since they aren't even aware of the frustrations and
contradictions.
> Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> > Milton Mueller a �crit:
> >
> > > No, what's really going on here is that the dnso.org is
> > > attempting to cut a deal with the trademark interests.
> >
> > Milton-
> >
> > The other assertions you made in your posting may be true; I have no
> > information one way or the other. But that the dnso.org per se is cutting
> > deals can't be true, since the vast majority of the participants in the
> > dnso.org have not been consulted. These people, who met in Barcelona and
> > Monterrey, are subscribed to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, but do not for
> > the most part read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list or the IFWP list. Since all the
> > discussion about trademarks and membership are taking place on those two
> > lists, the dnso.org participants are not privy to what's going on.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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____________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
