We too (INEGroup) have been waiting of a response from Jon
Englund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> regarding admittance to being included
in this
CLOSED January 21st meeting. I sent that request on January
10th.
10 days and waiting and still no response. It is the evening
of January
20th as I am sending this. John, should I assume that we (INEGroup)
as well as others, (BWG, ORSC, ect) are not included in this January
21st CLOSED meeting than? Please advise.
Ellen Rony wrote:
On January 9, I submitted to the DNSO.ORG discussion list and to JonRegards,
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____________________________________________
--
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
