Stef and all,
Well if you feel this way why not just shun ICANN as well? That seems
to be your answer to something that you don't agree with in most cases,
why should ICANN be any exception? Or is there possibly another
motive?
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I fully agree with Dan and Ellen, and I propose that someone collect
> all these process comments toether and grop them as a digest into all
> the ICANN comments lists.
>
> I take the clear implication that this is designed to disable all
> useful discussion and comment. I also assume that all those who
> directly support ICANN are commenting privately to various or all BoD
> members, and that they will all be heavily counted against the public
> coments. Note that ICANN nevere has disclosed who those "many
> backers" are that formed what ICANN claimed to form an overwhelming
> consensus.
>
> So, how can we possibly expect a different story now.
>
> So, I predict that we will soon be informed that their is actually no
> consensus for OPENness, or for the PARIS Draft, or against the
> Registrar Accreditation plans (which are terrible from what I have
> seen)!
>
> Just mark my words when all this is proudly announced by ICANN as
> being decided by overwhelming consensus support, without defining or
> identifying the parties counted in the consensus measurement.
>
> Sigh...\Stef
>
> >From your message Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:04:10 -0500:
> }
> }I am afraid this kind of reminder is insufficient.
> }
> }Consider what you are asking us all to do (along with wading through
> }the daily e-mail):
> }* remember the comment mechanism (or find out about it for the first
> }time)
> }* check the website on a regular basis for publication of drafts (and
> }to be sure there are no changes)
> }* imagine when a comment period for each publication might likely
> }expire
> }* plan accordingly and hope we got it right
> }
> }Sorry but none of us on the list (to my knowledge) is a mind-reader.
> }
> }Is it too much to ask that each publication include an explicit
> }declaration of a comment period (and mechanism as applicable)? Not
> }all of the documents you would have us comment on have such a date
> }embedded within. Only one of them has the date in a prominent place
> }at the top of the document.
> }
> }And in the current instance, what you refer to as a 'reminder' comes
> }very late in the game. As stated by several people, 3 days (or less)
> }is simply not enough time for constructive comment. To be useful,
> }that reminder would have been sent with at least a week left.
> }
> }I think not.
> }
> }Molly Shaffer Van Houweling wrote:
> }>
> }> I should have made it clearer that my recent message was just a reminder.
> }> The comment mechanism was originally announced on Feb. 8.
> }>
> }> At 06:58 PM 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
> }> >I may not use the same words as Stef but I have to agree with the
> }> >content.
> }> >3 days (or less if you live in the wrong time zone) to prepare a
> }> >formal response (or even coherent comments)on some of these issues is
> }> >totally inappropriate.
> }> >
> }> >As for Stef's "Sahdes of IAHC" commentary, my memory may be fading
> }> >with age but I remember having much more time to comment both formally
> }> >and informally during the IAHC process. There were many aspects of
> }> >IAHC that I disagreed with, but a 3-day comment period is not one of
> }> >them. This part (at least) they appear to have done better than
> }> >ICANN and I feel it's important to set the record straight.
> }> >
> }> >Back to our regular program...
> }> >
> }> >Sorry to be blunt but this process of publishing drafts and seeking
> }> >comment prior to making a decision is not exactly rocket science.
> }> >While it may not be legally necessary (or even useful) to follow govt.
> }> >procedures, anyone who really wants comment on their work should be
> }> >prepared to allow sufficient lead time. If someone needs some
> }> >information by a particular date, it is normal to count backwards and
> }> >find out when to start asking for it in order to give people adequate
> }> >time to respond. It is also normal to expect people to complain if
> }> >you don't give them adequate time. It is also normal for people to
> }> >complain vigourously if you don't have an excellent reason for the
> }> >rush. I am willing to listen, but given that relevant dates have been
> }> >known for a little while, it will be hard to convince me.
> }> >
> }> >As to what to do about this situation, all I can suggest is that we
> }> >not be forced to bear the cost of this situation. That (IMHO) means
> }> >extending the deadline and I know that it means that the people who
> }> >have to read the comments won't have much time before the Singapore
> }> >meeting. That could mean burning lots of midnight oil or it could
> }> >mean information overload. If the latter is true, then decisions
> }> >should not be taken on such issues.
> }> >
> }> >There will be other meetings. The stability of the internet is not at
> }> >stake. Mail is getting through. The trains are running on time.
> }> >There's no rush (although many like myself would like to see something
> }> >finally happen).
> }> >
> }> >Einar Stefferud wrote:
> }> >>
> }> >> By what measure is 3 days maximum elapsed time deemed sufficient to
> }> >> obtain indepth and thoughtful comments (or suupport) from the global
> }> >> Interent Community?
> }> >>
> }> >> Sahdes of IAHC... they at least allowed us to have a couple of weeks
> }> >> before reading and ignoring our efforts.
> }> >>
> }> >> But, I suppose this is called trust building, to be able to show NTIA
> }> >> that they have waced their ideas under our noses and tht our responses
> }> >> were to weak to bother with;-)...
> }> >>
> }> >> Cheers...\Stef
> }> >>
> }> >> Cheers...\Stef
> }> >>
> }> >> >From your message Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:46:27 -0800:
> }> >> }
> }> >> }[Sorry for the cross-posting and repetition, but I want to be sure that no
> }> >> }one misses their chance to submit comments on issues to be considered by
> }> >> }the ICANN Board.]
> }> >> }
> }> >> }Please submit comments to ICANN on the proposals for the domain name
> }> >> }supporting organization, draft registrar accreditation guidelines, draft
> }> >> }conflicts of interest policy, and draft reconsideration policy. In order
> }> >> }to ensure that comments will be considered by the ICANN Board in advance of
> }> >> }its March 4 meeting, please submit them before midnight, U.S. West Coast
> }> >> }Time, February 26, following the instructions at:
> }> >> }
> }> >> }http://www.icann.org/drafts.html
> }> >> }
> }> >> }Please submit written comments even if you will be attending the public
> }> >> }forum on March 3 in Singapore, as time for commenting in person at the
> }> >> }meeting will be limited.
> }> >> }
> }> >> }If you have any questions, please send them directly to me at
> }> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }> >> }
> }> >> }Thank you,
> }> >> }
> }> >> }Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
> }> >> }Senior Advisor, ICANN
> }> >> }
> }> >
> }> >--
> }> >Dan Steinberg
> }> >
> }> >SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> }> >35, du Ravin
> }> >Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> }> >Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> }> >J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }
> }--
> }Dan Steinberg
> }
> }SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> }35, du Ravin
> }Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> }Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> }J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
