Esther and all,
Esther Dyson wrote:
> ....with care! Basically, we're hoping that any multiple SO proposals will
> reconcile themselves, because we are asking for a consensus rather than a
> winner. (There's no formal procedure, more a direction about the result.)
This is of course a reasonable answer and a seemingly good method to
make a determination. How does this jive with some able to participate
openly with DNSO.ORG and others no able to due to a CLOSED process
that is currently being conducted by DNSO.ORG? The same seems to also
to be true of the current PSO effort as well. In addition it seems that the
ICANN BoD is directly evolved with DNSO.ORG's effort through the
CLOSED "Participants List". How does this Jive with your answer Esther?
Next we (INEGroup) have been asking this question in many ways for
some time now. What authority, without and Individual Membership
ORganization defined or in place does the ICANN derive it's authority
to make any decisions on any SO's or when their submissions for
consideration?
>
>
> Valid suggestions from the comment period: The group/coalition drawing up
> the consensus proposal should incorporate/meld/draw upon such suggestions
> before submitting their final application. And then each SO (by definition)
> needs to have a way to continue to receive and respond to valid
> suggestions/input from the "outside" and from people formerly outside.
Can you DEFINE suscinctly, what you meaning of "Outside" is?
Should their have even need to have been an "Outside"? In other words,
in the requirements of the White Paper, OPENNESS and Transparency
are the hallmarks o how this process is supposed to be conducted. This
comment of yours seems to be in conflict with those White Paper
requirements, depending on your meaning.
>
>
> Having been part of such a process from the inside, I know how frustrating
> it can be, and I'm trying to think what lessons we (the Initial Board) can
> draw from our own experiences - not yet over! - to help in the formation of
> the SOs. It may be that consensus simply *is* difficult to achieve and that
> some struggle is necessary, but probably not all of it. One way I hope we
> can be helpful is to answer reasonable questions resonably.
You have answered Jay's question quite reasonably, but certainly not
completely or completely enough.
>
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> At 03:58 PM 07/01/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hello Esther,
> >
> >As we all watch the various stakeholders work
> >feverishly towards some kind of consensus on
> >the form and structure for the three Supporting
> >Organizations, I have a question about process.
> >
> >How will ICANN . . .
> >- reconcile multiple SO proposals?
> >- incorporate valid suggestions received during the
> > public comment period into the SO applications?
> >
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >
> >
> >Jay Fenello
> >President, Iperdome, Inc.
> >404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
> >
> >
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: 21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
> __________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
