On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 11:25:49PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >However, unlike ORSC, INTA has
> >committed to working with DNSO.org to try to work on those
> >differences. Since DNSO.org is in *fact* an open organization, we
> >will of course negotiate with them, and see if something can be
> >worked out.
>
>
> This seems, to me, to suggest that if a group does not "negotiate"
> with the dnso.org group, that group is by some reasoning bad.
If refusing to negotiate is bad...
> That's an awfully self-important stance to take.
Nope. It is a humble stance. DNSO.org is trying to negotiate with
everyone. DNSO.org went to great lengths to try to get ORSC to
participate, and extended personal invitations to a number of ORSC
members. That isn't enough for ORSC, though -- ORSC wants DNSO to
commit to DNS policies before it is even formed.
In fact, the essential character of DNSO.org is a nexus for
negotiation.
> You want to work on differences? How about dnso.org adding
> some fair hearing language to their next draft?
Sigh. Pity your claims of "direct observation" don't actually
include *reading* anything. In the *current* draft:
III. OPEN AND TRANSPARENT NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROCESSES
The processes of the Names Council (and the processes of each
constituency) shall be governed by the same provisions for open and
transparent non-discriminatory processes as those of the Board of
the Corporation. A general mechanism for review of conflicts and
grievances will be developed, and the Names Council shall appoint a
Fair Hearing Panel which will, among other responsibilities
******************
delegated to it by the Names Council, hear appeals pursuant to
Section I.D. of this application.
Other such conflicts and grievances heard by this Fair Hearing
************
Panel might include those regarding dominance or control of any
*****
single issue by means of membership in more than one constituency,
other methods of unfair domination by special interests, matters
concerning disputed membership in a constituency or the DNSO,
disputes concerning membership dues, either in the DNSO or in a
constituency, and so on.
Here's some further language I have already proposed for the next
draft, the draft being developed through negotiations with that evil
entity, INTA:
Section 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Fair Hearing Panels
The Names Council will appoint, as necessary, Fair Hearing Panels
to collect information concerning grievances, complaints, and
conflicts that may arise, to make recommendations to the Names
Council for possible remedial or other action.
> I suspect that
> would get you a lot of ORSC participation.
Oh sure.
> Put your money where your mouth is.
We already did.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
