I found that anyone who wanted to play a part in DNSO.ORG activities was
accorded a spot on the various teams that are trying to move the effort
forward. ORSC was certainly invited before, and we just wanted to extend
that invitation again. We're a new group and don't have formal procedures
for putting people on these teams. One good thing about formality is that
everyone knows exactly what to expect; we solved the contentious issue about
how to move forward by offering anyone at our meetings to participate.
One team set up was our transition team, of which I am one. Our mission is
to reach out to the other groups involved in the process and try to get
them, and their points of view, on board. The point of this is (1) to
understand what people are thinking, and (2) try to produce something that
works for as many as possible, try not to be doctrinaire.
Personally, I think the ORSC has something to contribute. So does the rest
of the transition team. Are you bound by the results? Well, CENTR, in the
person of Bernie Turcotte, is on the team, and they published a list of why
they disagreed with the results. As is their privilege. I don't think
their own sense of identity, nor the public perception of them as an
independent body, has been sullied one bit by their participation in
DNSO.ORG, or by their disagreement with other DNSO.ORG members. For
instance, CENTR opposes a membership category for domain holders or
individuals, what we have been calling an "at-large" category. They believe
that ICANN already has a membership, and that should suffice. But they
remain participants in the DNSO.ORG process.
As to openness, well, it's an old dispute. Some people don't find ORSC very
open. Hardly anyone finds ICANN open, yet we're all struggling to come up
with a DNSO application. NSI doesn't even pretend to be open, and the U.S.
Gov't -- well, what do *you* think politics is about? But personally I've
found DNSO.ORG to be very open, I was never refused access to anything I
asked for -- I tend to ask nicely -- and whenever I have proposed making
things more open for people who don't ask or don't know who to ask or don't
know how to ask, I've met with general approval. Maybe your experience is
different, but for many others it has been a good environment.
If there are specific things you'd like to see -- I really mean specific,
because it's very hard to work with "you should be more X" -- I'd like to
hear them. It doesn't mean I can do anything with them, but I can try.
With respect, ORSC seems to be a group of like-minded people: you've managed
to elect a leader in Stef, many of you have worked together for quite a
while, and you all seem to be from North America. I don't mean to imply
that you're not fair-minded, but it's not the wide range of different
interests and cultures that are in DNSO.ORG, working together for the first
time. Sometimes people, coming from a point of view I hadn't considered,
have serious objections to proposals -- and that has to be respected.
The diversity probably accounts for the infighting, BTW. All in all it's
not the worst thing in the world.
As for the invitation to join the ORSC drafting committee, I'd be happy to
join, although you may not like what I have to say. I'm not particularly
worried that my identity will become sullied, either. If I don't like what
you're doing, I'm always free to say so. Right?
Personally I don't care whether it's called DNSO.ORG or ORSC or ICC or ITAA
or Cousin Blinky's Roadside Rotisserie. The point is to get something done
that's acceptable to all parties. You can call us pigs in a poke, but this
pig is working hard to keep the DNS as self-regulated as possible, and I
wouldn't be on the transition or drafting team if I didn't think that the
other members were too. We invited ORSC before to be on the transition
team, I'm asking again. I'll join your team, send someone over to join
ours.
Antony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 1999 12:30 AM
> To: Jay Fenello
> Cc: Antony Van Couvering; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DNSO.ORG transition team
>
>
> I also very much appreciate the gesture, and the outreach effort to
> get ORSC to include itself, but there are some difficult issues that
> we have to consider.
>
> By providing one member of the DNSO.ORG tranistionteam, does ORSC then
> abandon its efforts to publically develop a consensus draft that
> includes and erven larger set of constituencies?
>
> As Mikki is our primary editing resource at te moment (though
> presently disabled by the nasty weather problems in Washington) this
> decision woudl mean that ORSC gives up its prsnt postion to through in
> with a secretive closed editing process where even ORSC cannot follow
> and discuss what is being done with our ideas and values, and where
> ORSC woudl appear rto be bound to the results, even thoguh ORSC has
> but one vote in a large group who have no obligtion to accept our
> input.
>
> I am afraid the the situation is just not set up to be inticing to any
> outsider, unless that outside has a very srtrong incentive to become
> part of the existing DNSO.ORG, and is wiling to buy a pig in a poke.
>
> Also, I am afraid we have been witnees to much too much of the
> internal infighting of DNSO.ORG to feel comfortable.
>
> And, so far, no one fomr ORSC has inquired about being our ORSC
> participant in the DNSO.ORG Transistion Team drafting party.
>
> Indeed, in return, ORSC is inviting all of the DNSO.ORG participants
> to participate in our ORSC drafting effort;-)... Not just one, who
> would be a clear minority among a bunch of people who already have a
> set agenda and specific target that is unknown to ORSC.
>
> But, maye someone will pop up with a desire to join the DNSO.ORG
> Tranistion Team.
>
> BTWE, 9s there some place where interested parties can review what
> DNSO.ORG is doing as part of their effort to decide about
> volunteering?
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:30:27 -0500:
> }
> }
> }At 1/16/99, 10:57 AM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> }>Jay,
> }>
> }>The offer is made without conditions; it would be great if you
> could respond
> }>in the same spirit. There wasn't any dissent about offering
> you a place --
> }>I took minutes of the teleconference meeting and I'll be posting them to
> }>various lists later this morning, you can see the details there.
> }
> }
> }Hi Antony,
> }
> }Please don't misunderstand. This email was not directed
> }at you, nor was it directed at the transition team. You
> }have made a very generous offer, one that ORSC is trying
> }to decide what to do with.
> }
> }I sent this email to Stef, with my recommendations for
> }ORSC participating on your team. More comments below . . .
> }
> }
> }>Antony
> }>
> }>> -----Original Message-----
> }>> From: Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> }>> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 1999 3:52 AM
> }>> To: Einar Stefferud
> }>> Cc: Antony Van Couvering; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>> Subject: Re: DNSO.ORG transition team
> }>>
> }>>
> }>> Hi Stef,
> }>>
> }>> I suggest that we accept this offer, contingent upon . . .
> }>> - the outcome of the January 22nd meeting in Washington
> }
> }
> }There is at least an outside chance that we will reach
> }a consensus in Washington, in which case your drafting
> }team may no longer be needed.
> }
> }
> }>> - appropriate openness rules for the transition team
> }
> }
> }ORSC is a principled and value-based organization.
> }It would be inappropriate for us to agree to be on
> }your team, without a corresponding agreement that
> }we can freely discuss transition team activities.
> }
> }We've played that game before. We do not want to
> }be in another situation like the ICANN Membership
> }Advisory Committee (MAC). After all, what good is
> }it to have a ORSC representative on a committee,
> }when they are bound to secrecy as a condition of
> }their membership (as rumor has it ;-(
> }
> }
> }>> - ORSC's participation does not preclude Mikki Barry's.
> }
> }
> }I'm not suggesting that we need two representatives on
> }the transition team, only that Mikki can independently
> }agree as a DNRC representative, and she should have
> }first dibs.
> }
> }Jay.
> }
> }
> }>> Jay.
> }>>
> }>>
> }>> At 1/16/99, 02:38 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> }>> >Hello Anthony -- Thank you for your vote of confidence and your offer
> }>> >of a "seat" at the DNSL.ORG transition team table.
> }>> >
> }>> >I do not have anyone in hand that I think would like to serve in the
> }>> >role that you propose, so I am CC'ing our discussion list to
> see if we
> }>> >have a volunteer.
> }>> >
> }>> >(see Antony's msg included below)
> }>> >
> }>> >To ORSC:
> }>> >
> }>> >If anyone wants to participate in the DNSO.ORG transition team which
> }>> >is editing the DNSO.ORG Application to ICANN, please let me
> }>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> know, and we can discuss what is involved. ORSC will
> }>> >obligate you to represent ORSC issues and positions in the DNSO.ORG
> }>> >"transition" process, as that is what Antony and the DNSO.ORG team is
> }>> >requesting, and of course, a delegate from ORSC should represent the
> }>> >issues and positions of ORSC;-)...
> }>> >
> }>> >I expect they are doing their work via EMail, and some
> }>> >teleconferences. I don't know if they cover the
> teleconfence costs or
> }>> >not. And of course it will require your time and an understanding of
> }
> }>> >the issues that are on the table. And will require checking
> back with
> }>> >the ORSC list participants to obtain reassurance on any issues where
> }>> >you are in doubt as the process moves along.
> }>> >
> }>> >Antony:
> }>> >
> }>> >Please advise the ORSC list of the expected time and funding
> }>> >requirements that our delegate should expect to encounter.
> }>> >
> }>> >NOTE to ORSC:
> }>> >
> }>> >As Chair the Board of ORSC, I have declined to serve in this role
> }>> >because of the conflict of interest presented by needing to
> be on both
> }>> >sides of the fence. But I see no problems with some ORSC pariticpant
> }>> >who wants to take this on.
> }>> >
> }>> >Best...\Stef
> }>> >
> }>> >From your message Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:26:19 -0500:
> }>> >}
> }>> >}Stef,
> }>> >}
> }>> >}Our transition team had a teleconference today and we decided
> }>> to invite you
> }>> >}to nominate someone from ORSC to join. We have decided also to
> }>> ask Mikki
> }>> >}Barry to join the drafting team. I'm not sure what her
> }>> relationship is with
> }>> >}ORSC, but if you are happy with her as your rep, that's OK with
> }>> us. If, on
> }>> >}the other hand, you would like to nominate someone else, I
> can pass that
> }>> >}back to the transition team.
> }>> >}
> }>> >}We feel that more formal input from ORSC would be valuable.
> }>> >}
> }>> >}Antony
> }>> >}
> }>> >}> -----Original Message-----
> }>> >}> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> }>> >}> Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>> >}> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 1:57 AM
> }>> >}> To: Michael Sondow
> }>> >}> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dr Eberhard W Lisse; Mikki Barry;
> Roberto Gaetano;
> }>> >}> 'DNSO open list'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> }>> >}> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>> >}> Subject: Re: DNSO.ORG Meeting proposal on Jan.23(for the
> last time)
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> This very interesting thread appears to be based on a false
> }>> >}> assumption. The facts of life are that anyone can take the entire
> }>> >}> collection of published drafts and meld them into a composite for
> }>> >}> consideration as a possibility for consensus.
> }>>
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> That is exactly what Mikki did for ORSC. So, as I see
> it, the ORSC
> }>> >}> draft may have already done the job you are arguing about
> "how to do".
> }>> >}> It is hard to know however, as the next DNSO.ORG draft is
> being kept
> }>> >}> secret until it is completed.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> And, at this point, Mikki and some others are about to embark on a
> }>> >}> next round of ORSC draft edits to include still more comments that
> }>> >}> have appeared on the scene. This work will be done in
> the open as was
> }>> >}> the prior draft.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> We (of ORSC, et al) do not follow the precept that new
> drafts should
> }>> >}> be generated in private with a big unveiling when
> complete. That is
> }>> >}> the mode of drafting used by IAHC and others, with poor consensus
> }>> >}> attracting results. ORSC does no choose to go that
> route. That way
> }>> >}> there be dragons of exactly the kind that this thread is
> enouncering.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> So, I have to ask, to what extent does our ORSC draft
> already meet the
> }>> >}> expectations of the next DNSO.ORG draft, if it is trying to do the
> }>> >}> same thing? (Yes, we know it is not really finished yet!)
> }
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> Are you all sure you are not just redoing Mikki's
> completed work? If
> }>> >}> you are doing this to seek consensus, I expect you very
> well might be
> }>> >}> redoing the ORSC work. So, maybe you all woudl rather
> just join the n
> }>> >}> next round of ORSC editing. It will be done completely
> in the open,
> }>> >}> just like last time.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> Also, we only have the same sized window of 3 working
> days. At your
> }>> >}> current rate of progress in this thread, you will not yet
> have fond
> }>> >}> consensus on how to proceed with editing before it is too late.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> In case you are wondering, the secret is to "Just Do It"
> (TM Nike),
> }>> >}> and if done in the open, and with daily cycles, it can be made to
> }>> >}> converge very quickly. It is only when you try do it in
> a restricted
> }>> >}> environement that you get into these messy kinds of arguments.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> Cheers...\Stef
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}> >From your message Wed, 13 Jan 1999 16:02:59 -0500:
> }>> >}> }
> }>> >}> }Mikki Barry:
> }>> >}> }>
> }>> >}> }> At 8:34 PM +0200 1/13/99, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> }>> >}> }> >In message <v04003a87b2c291b7b33e@[207.87.121.93]>, Mikki
> }>> >}> Barry writes:
> }>> >}> }> >> >> So, as I argued successfully in another post, Mikki
> }>> >}> Barry (or anyone
> }>> >}> }> >> >> else with a contrary position) can also be on the
> }>> drafting team.
> }>> >}> }> >> >
> }>> >}> }> >> >I am too tired to go through this now (I had a very
> }>> long operating
> }>> >}> }> >> >list and a large clinic in the afternoon), has she asked
> }>> >}> to be on the
> }>> >}> }> >> >Drafting Team?
> }>> >}> }> >>
> }>> >}> }> >> Actually, I asked to be added to the transition list, the
> }>> >}> drafting list,
> }>> >}> }> >> and the participants list months ago and received
> no response.
> }>> >}> }> >
> }>> >}> }> >On behalf of ORSC?
> }>> >}> }>
> }>> >}> }> Not necessarily. On behalf of myself. I am involved with
> }>> >}> several groups,
> }>> >}> }> including ORSC, BWG, and DRNC.
> }>> >}> }
> }>> >}> }I beg your pardon, Eberhard (and everyone else on the DNSO
> }>> >}> drafting team),
> }>> >}> }but interrogating Mikki Barry is just not on. You say you're for
> }>> >}> fairness,
> }>> >}> }equality, and cooperation? Mikki Barry has done as much
> as any person
> }>> >}> }involved to help this process, and probably more than most. She
> }>>
> }>> >}> has written
> }>> >}> }a fine DNSO application proposal, for a group that has as much
> }>> >}> legitimacy as
> }>> >}> }the DNSO.org (I mean the ORSC), and we should be heppy to have
> }>> >}> her on board,
> }>> >}> }if she'll deign to grace us with her presence.
> }>> >}> }
> }>> >}> }It's not for anyone here to pretend that they're in a position
> }>> >}> of authority,
> }>> >}> }to be interrogating Mikki Barry about her credentials for
> }>> serving on the
> }>> >}> }drafting committee. You should roll out the carpet for her,
> }>> and be darned
> }>> >}> }pleased if she'll join us.
> }>> >}> }
> }>> >}> }If you try to keep out of the DNSO the ORSC and all its
> }>> >}> adherents, you are
> }>> >}> }marginalizing and dooming the DNSO, because ICANN does
> }>> nothing without
> }>> >}> }consulting them, and if push comes to shove they're
> going to get more
> }>> >}> }support from the larger community than us.
> }
> }>> >}> }
> }>> >}> }Put her on the drafting team if she wants to join it and has
> }>> the time to
> }>> >}> }spare us. And stop pretending that you're the DNS authority.
> }>> >}>
> }>> >}
> }>> >
> }>>
> }>>
> }>>
> }>>
> }>
> }
>
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
