Anyone can offer any comments they wish on any of the major lists and
our "Joint Meld Draft" Team will capture htem and do what they can
with them.
It will be most helpful to supply replacement text when commenting
that some section does not say what you want it to say. By supplying
such text, you vcan avoid the confustion and hassle of hoping that our
editors will produce the text you want to see inserted.
Of course, when others offer other texts, then either our editors will
find a way to meld them or will have to pacakge them for public
debate. We are resolving to not have the drafting team make
judgements on behalf of the stakeholders unless the fixes are fairly
obvious, and even then the results have to pass muster in public
review. We will strive to not let the text become locked up and
ridgidly immutable. It has to remain plastic and revieable for this
exercise.
So, we offer no restrictions on what you do or how you do it, but all
the work will be done in the public orum and will have to pass muster
in open review. No one needs our permission to propose whatever they
wish. WE only require that it pass muster in public review.
I hope that this will work as well as we hope it will, and that it
will build the required consensus for the results.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:25:35 +0000:
}
}Jay and all,
}
} We have no problem with Andrew as being the "Editor" of any jointly
}devised DNSO Draft, as long as there is a vote on any amendments
}suggested. Any objections?
}
} In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our
}suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record
}in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections?
}
} We will also be making amendment suggestions to the latest
}"Merged Draft" That You Jay sent to the relevant lists based on
}our memberships vote. Any Objections?
}
}Jay Fenello wrote:
}
}> Hello Everyone,
}>
}> Andrew Kraft, the Executive Director
}> of AIP, has volunteered to be the Draft
}> Editor for the *draft* new draft. FWIW,
}> I met Andrew in Boston, and I think he
}> would do a good job. (Any objections?)
}>
}> While comments have been light, I do
}> believe that we have two areas of
}> consensus.
}>
}> First, I believe that we do *not* have
}> consensus on the question of constituencies.
}> I suggest that the draft reflect this point.
}> (Any objections?)
}>
}> Second, I believe that we *do* have
}> consensus on removing the line "Due process
}> to be acceptable by each individual registry,
}> individually." in the INTRODUCTION section.
}> (Any objections?)
}>
}> Jay.
}>
}> P.S. To save bandwidth, we might want to
}> designate a URL as the official consensus
}> draft.
}>
}> >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:39:07 -0500
}> >To: "John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}> >From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}> >Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
}> >Cc: "DNSO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "DNS Policy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
}> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}> >
}> >At 1/31/99, 04:52 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote:
}> >>DNSO and ICANN decisions should be reached via a process that respects due
}> >>process. However, due process does not require that every affected party
}> >>must agree with decisions before they are implemented. I would find the
}> >>paragraph in question to be acceptable if it were modified in accordance
}> >>with Antony Van Couvering's suggestion (i.e. removal of the last sentence).
}> >
}> >
}> >Agreed.
}> >
}> >Jay.
}> >
}
}Regards,
}
}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____________________________________________
