Jon and all,
Well thank you for your less than timely reply as the meeting on
January
21st is of course already over. I sent you our original regarding
possible
participation in the CLOSED meeting on January 18th, which was 4
days prior to that meeting taking place. As anyone in any industry
that wishes to continue to remain gamefully employed understand that
timeliness is necessary. I would also add on this note, that my request
was far in advance of your 48 hour response time supposed requirement.
So I as well as we (INEGroup) find your flimsy excuse as both invalid
and disingenuous.
As has been pointed out time and time again and is part of the
recorded
record of the discussions of the DNSO.ORG effort, there is variably no
effort to have an open and transparent process in the creation of a
"DNSO".
This record is available on several archives of relevant mailing lists
such
as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, yet again
you are again being completely disingenuous on this point as well.
Jon Englund wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I apologize for not giving you a more prompt reply. I've had an
> unusually large volume of e-mail messages over the last couple of weeks,
> and am just sorting through some unread messages, which included yours.
>
> If there is an urgent matter that needs to be addressed, feel free to
> call us at 703-522-5055. We are fairly successful at returning
> telephone calls within a 48 hour period.
>
> Contributing to the work associated with forming the domain names
> supporting organization is only a small part of my job, so I
> unfortunately only have limited time to devote to the effort. You may
> want to also direct any future questions towards the other eight
> convening organizations, since this was a shared effort [see list of
> convening organizations below]. You also raised questions about the
> DNSO.ORG process, which should be directed to leaders of this effort.
>
> I am happy to report that our meeting on Friday at George Washington
> University was quite successful, with most of those participating in
> this open meeting agreeing that differences among the various proposals
> had been narrowed as a result. As you might imagine, organizing the
> meeting took a lot of time and resources to pull off, but I think that
> most would agree that it was a somewhat effective tool in bringing
> various organizations and individuals together to make some progress.
> We posted the invitation to this meeting on the IFWP as well as other
> lists, and we were sorry not to see you there. We had many
> opportunities for Q&A and statements from participants.
>
> As far as the meeting on the 21st, I was happy to see that one of the
> participants on the IFWP list had put together a very useful and
> effective summary of the meeting, which has been posted to the list. I
> also addressed many of the inquiries associated with the meeting on the
> 21st at Friday's meeting (see below):
>
> "I also want to say that the convening organizations as well as other
> organizations held a meeting yesterday afternoon for the purpose of
> better structuring today's meeting, and using our limited time here in a
> more organized and productive fashion. We explored the major points of
> contention, and where there appear to be similarities among the
> proposals that will be presented today. Our facilitator, Marc Chinoy,
> will report later on this. Let me assure everyone that no policy
> decisions were made. We finalized today's agenda and everyone is looking
> forward to hearing from all of you today. Another question that has come
> up is how did the organizations become involved with each other as
> conveners of today's meeting? The answer is that various groups had
> begun talking with each other - something
> that I view as a positive development - and these groups came together
> thinking that it was a good idea to hold today's open meeting and hear
> as many viewpoints as possible (and I might add, do all the hard
> work in actually making it happen!)."
>
> We wholeheartedly agree with the goals of an open, democratic and
> transparent domain names supporting organization, and hope that we are
> contributing in a small way to that end result.
>
> Jon Englund
>
> List of Convening Organizations:
>
> Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX)
> Council of European National Top level domain Registries (CENTR)
> European ISP Association (EUROISPA)
> International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
> International Trademark Association (INTA)
> Internet Council of Registrars (CORE)
> Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)
> Policy Oversight Committee (POC)
> World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA)
>
> > ----------
> > From: jeff Williams[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 11:20 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jon Englund; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William Daley; karen Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [ifwp] Esther's Remarks
> >
> > Jon and all,
> >
> > I read with great interest and listened to Esther Dysons remarks. I
> > am
> > quite curious as to why on January 15th when I am others of other
> > organizations
> > sent E-Mails to you and Pete, regarding the January 21st CLOSED
> > meeting
> > we were not invited nor did we receive any reply. As we (INEGroup)
> > represent a very large number of stakeholders we would have thought
> > as a common courtesy that we would have received some sort of reply.
> > This lack of action on the part of yourself and the DNSO.ORG bunch,
> > seems purposefully to exclude a large number of "Interested Parties"
> > from
> > active participation in the event in Washington currently.
> >
> > This however has followed the discussions that have been taking
> > place
> > over the past several month with respect to the DNSO.ORG on the
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and the CLOSED lists of the DNSO.ORG
> > list
> > most specifically the "Participants List" in which there has been so
> > much
> > controversy with respect to the ITU and Robert Shaw added some
> > specific
> > ICANN individuals that did not attend the supposedly required meeting
> > at
> > Monterey and Barcelona. We are curious as to how this is consistent
> > with the DNSO.ORG's "Outreach Program"....
> >
> > We can therefore only logically conclude that the DNSO.ORG is not
> > acting
> > in the best interest of the Stakeholder community and is preparing a
> > proposal to the ICANN that does not meet the requirements of the White
> >
> > Paper..
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Jon Englund wrote:
> >
> > >From yesterday's domain names meeting are available on
> > realvideo on the
> > WITSA web site at http://www.witsa.org/press/domain.htm
> >
> > Jon Englund
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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____________________________________________
> >
> > Respectful 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
> >
> >
Kindest 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
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
