On January 9, I submitted to the DNSO.ORG discussion list and to Jon Englund, organizer of a January 21 meeting, a list of questions regarding that closed event (questions below). Receiving no reply, I wrote again to Mr. Englund on January 16 as his Letter of Invitation to the January 22 meeting failed to address concerns about the objectives and closed nature of pre-meeting the day before. Mr. Englund responded on January 18, saying that he would get back to me soon but that he needed to coordinate preliminary responses with the convening organizations. Eight days and waiting. I responded to him personally the same afternoon with this message: >The *closed* January 21 meeting is only THREE days away, so a timely >response to my questions would be prudent. Delays in responding before >the questions become moot may result in having this meeting mired in >dischord at the outset. Ten days and waiting. Today, less than 24 hours before the meeting, Mr. Englund wrote back explaining that he will answer my questions at the Friday meeting. * Now now, before the secret meeting takes place. * Not online, for the many of us who are deeply committed to these issues but unable to attend meetings thither and yon. * Not to those individuals or organizations who requested to be included in the January 21 pre-meeting. A second message today from Mr. Englund included Friday's agenda and this comment: "the primary purpose of Thursday's meeting among the convening organizations is to explore where there is some agreement and where there is disagreement, for the sake of making Friday's meeting more effective and constructive, using everyone's time as wisely as possible." Yes, please use our time wisely. Keep the rest of us in the dark. Prohibit others from participation in the real discussion and present this proceedings on Friday as "un fait accompli". I don't believe there will be legions of folks storming the doors on January 21 to participate in that meeting. All the more reason not to exclude the few who have the desire and the funds to go to Washington to participate in the formulation proceedings for the DNSO. I don't know what all the convening organizations have to fear by shining some light on these discussions. I wasn't impressed with the way things were going forward -- closed ICANN Board meetings, for example -- and now, I'm just plain angry at the damned elitism and imperious complacency that colors this self-governing effort. ________________________ Here are the questions I asked on JANUARY 9th. 1. What was the criteria for being a coordinating organization of the January 22 DNSO formulation meeting? Why are no organizations that operate in the public interest included as sponsors? 2. Who determined what organizations to invite to the January 21 meeting? Did any invitees decline participation? Did any organizations requesting inclusion in this meeting get turned down? If so, on what basis? 3. How was the invitation to the january 21 meeting presented, i.e., was there a specific agenda to get the commercial sponsors together to discuss, negotiate and coordinate positions, any specific funding requested (although it says the meeting is self-supporting), other concerns/requirements to participate? 4. What are the objectives of the January 21 meeting? 5. Has an agenda for the January 22 meeting been determined? If so, by whom, and if not, when will it be and by whom? 6. Who are the "DNSO members" that are mentioned as decisionmakers of these issues? Am I a member if I participate on the DNSO-discuss list but cannot afford to attend these meetings? Must money change hands to be eligible to vote? What is the limit to attendance at the Jan. 22 meeting? How many will be participating in the Jan. 21 pre-meeting. 7. If the goal is to arrive at a broad-based consensus on the draft bylaws for the DNSO, how will that consensus defined and determined (voice vote, show of hands? one person=one vote?) by this group? Will those who cannot attend this meeting be given a channel for providing input and participating in the consensus determination? Why does consensus need to be announced at a physical meeting and not withheld until those online actually get to contribute to the discussion? For example, incorporation. This probably isn't merely a gut decision but one that should be answered based on some political and legal realities. Why not post those realities so that INFORMED consensus can be ascertained. 8. What role does the WIPO study play in the establishment of a DNSO? Will it be discussed during the meeting? 9. How can independent enterprises and individual domain registrants (collectively a very large constituency) have a true voice in these negotiations? Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ================================ // =================================== ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA // \\ "Carpe canine" Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com ================================ // =================================== ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA // \\ "Carpe canine" __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
