Hello Don Heath,
I'd like to register a disagreement. Comments interspersed.
At 01:40 AM 2/8/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Sorry, Mr. Heath, but I didn't agree to continue this discussion in secret,
>so I am posting this to the same recipient list as was used previously.
>
>Don Heath wrote:
>
>> I was sitting directly behind you in the Washington meeting and directly
>> across from you in the Boston meeting. I was not in Monterrey. I have been
>> involved in this process from the beginning.
>
>You never posted to any of the lists, not even to the DNSO.org lists, where
>the controversy over what Kent Crispin and Michael Heltzer were doing was
>conducted. You weren't in Monterrey, where the real consensus work was
>> I am also quite aware of
>> the process and that a very disparate group of people have come together
>> to produce this consensus draft.
>
>Almost all the groups listed on the websites as supporters of the proposal
>you defend are business and trademark groups. Do you call that a disparate
>group of people?
>
>> Michael, respectfully, thousands of people don't write a draft.
>> Typically a few do it based on meetings of masses and from discussions
>> on electronic lists, etc.
I beg to differ. The ORSC and the AIP, in concert managed to create the
Paris Draft, almost completely on-line, with input directly from the
discussion lists. Yes, there was an editing team, but it wasn't done behind
closed doors, as the Washington DC (BMW) draft was created. Most of the
DNSO.ORG folk never even saw the actual draft being presented, prior to the
Washington DC meeting. Dr. Lisse can corroborate. Also, there aren't even
500 interested individuals involved in these discussions. We would actually
welcome some new blood. What we have is getting a little stale <grin>.
>> For someone to use words such as " [the
>> draft] was written by a very small (less than 5) group that accepted
>> very little external input," is simply false and misleading and
>> not constructive. This was not a quote from you but from someone
>> who is trying to distort the process.
No, it wasn't from Michael, but it wasn't an attempt to distort the process
either. The statement is true, as anyone who has been closely following the
issue knows very well. Dr. Lisse can confirm that what Michael states is
accurate. The BMW draft does not even conform to DNSO.ORG consensus. Yet,
it came out as one of two drafts, the unfavored one, under the auspices of
the DNSO.ORG group. Michael actually named the two persons principally
responsible for the draft. As a matter of fact, Amadeu can also confirm, as
he actually made an announcement concerning this issue. That is where the
revelation, that there were actually two DNSO.ORG drafts, came from.
>The draft submitted by the CORE leaders in the names of the business and
>trademark contingents was written by a handfull of CORE people. This has
>even been admitted by Crispin and Co. I monitored the DNSO.org lists
>constantly, as I do the other lists involved, and there was very little
>input to the draft, except for protests against it, and what little input
>existed was ignored. Since the Barcelona and Monterrey consensuses were
>dispensed with, where is the mass participation in its composition that you
>claim?
Again, this appears to be accurate, from the list archives. I have been
closely watching, with concern.
>As to misleading statements about others' drafts, you wrote:
>
>"The group with a consistent narrow focus, the small collection of
>people driven by those claiming to be part of ORSC, seems to be quite
>unwilling to work with anyone but themselves."
>
>But the ORSC didn't write the Paris draft. It's based on work that AIP did,
>with later input from many sources, including numerous independent
>stakeholders who originally collaborated with DNSO.org in Barcelona and
>Monterrey, but who changed to the AIP proposal when they saw it was better
>than that written by the CORE leaders. So saying that it's an ORSC proposal
>is misleading and untrue. You may dislike the ORSC, but why denigrate the
>Paris draft because of that?
This most certainly is very accurate. Mikki Barry, the ORSC draft editor,
became overloaded and was also caught in a series of power outages, east
coast USA. Andrew Kraft, of the AIP, took over the work and merged it with
the DNSO proposal that *his* organization had already drafted. These two,
with other input, were merged and became what is known as the Paris draft.
I might add that Mikki Barry is also an INTA member, as I am an ISOC
member. The merged-draft team is a fairly good cross-section of the
disparate groups involved in these debates. All work was done in the open
and reviewed and approved on-line. This is a direct contrast to the draft
presented by the DNSO.ORG contingent.
BTW, I thought I was being very generous by stating that there were as many
as five persons involved in the BMW draft. I was giving them the benefit of
the doubt. I am only aware of two, possibly three, drafters. The draft,
that was presented at Washington DC, was NOT reviewed prior to
presentation. Of this I am certain. I was actually hunting for it at the
DNSO.ORG discussion list. The excuse was that there wasn't enough time. The
simple fact that no one can blame anyone other than the same two, or three,
persons for the BMW draft, yet you say there were more, by itself indicates
that the BMW draft was done in closed sessions with secret participants, in
direct contravention of the DNSO.ORG mission statement, as well as
requirements laid out by the ICANN and fist-principles, wrt open-process,
spelled out in the White Paper.
Again, I make no accusations. I am only voicing a deep concern. There is a
definite consensus that agreement needs to be found among the various DNSO
proposal drafts. The process of negotiated compromise has already begun,
absent the editors of the BMW draft, by their choice. Maintaining open
neutrality, in the face of the available evidence, is ... difficult.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
