Forwarded per Mr Semich's permission in this message.
I should note that I fully concur with Mr Semich in his analysis here, and
concur that the Paris draft is indeed the draft that better represents the
principles we have been seeking in this process since it's beginning.
Speaking for myself, and on behalf of DSO Internet/WXWeb Services, I
fully support the Paris draft encourage others to read the two drafts and post
their own opinions as soon as possible. This is MOST important.
--
William X. Walsh, General Manager
DSO Internet/WXWeb Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-----
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:10:05 EDT
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DNSO process and Drafts submitted to ICANN
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am sorry, Amadeu, but you have changed history a bit in your long and
most interesting missive (excerpted below). Please see my comments....
In reply to 06 Feb message from Amadeu Abril i Abril
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>All DNSO.org process participants, friends, lurkers and PhD
>students in search of pathological cases for your dissertations
>I'm sending a short note summarizing what's transpired over the
>past week. ...
<snip>
>As many of you are aware, there are two drafts that have come out
>of the so called DNSO.org process. While this is not what was
>intended, it is what has resulted and we need to work with this.
Correct.
>The first draft is based on the DNSO.org work in Barcelona and
>Monterrey, and was built on by the organizers of the Washington
>meeting. Let's call it the BMW draft
>(Barcelona-Monterrey-Washington).
You have missed a very important piece of information here, Amadeu.
Washington is where the DNSO "consensus process" broke. The (originally
secret) Washington meeting discarded all the work that went before and
completely changed the direction of the "consensus" that we all had
worked so hard so long to build. The trademark and other business
interests *were* involved in Monterrey, but in Washington they were *in
charge*, not just involved.
So please do not call it the BMW draft - it is, instead, the "Washington
Draft."
There is also some question as to whether "ISOC" as an organization
supports the "Washington Draft" as well. Where is the poll of ISOC
members?
>Many of the organisers of the Washington meeting (ITAA,
>WITSA, ICC..) also support it, and this is why it is "more" than
>Barcelona & Monterrey.
Sorry, Amadeu, but it is *less* than Barcelona and Monterrey. Just look
at the list of participants in Monterrey and you will see that 19 of the
39 who attended have signed on to support the Paris Draft, where only 10
of them are signing the DNSO.ORG draft.
I believe the Paris Draft most completely represents the kinds of
approaches we all worked so hard to build into this process througout
the many months we have all been working on it - all the way back to the
first IFWP meeting in Reston, VA last year.
I urge the members of these lists to closely review the Paris Draft and
also add your names in support of it. And if any of you belong to other
relevant lists, please circulate this message to those as well.
Best wishes,
Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
Internet Users Society - Niue
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.NU Domain (Niue, The South Pacific)
Memberships: ISOC, ISP/C, APIA, IATLD, APTLD
--------------End of forwarded message-------------------------
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05-Feb-99
Time: 17:48:42
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
