Michael and all, Agreed to an extent with what you say here Michael. The problem with isolating yourself, as those that are on the Participants list for DNSO.ORG is that they only have a very narrow view and cannot make realistic personal or otherwise decisions of opinions as a result. What needs to occur is one of two things. Either open up the "Participants list" to everyone or close it down and do all the discussion on bylaws and transition on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. The only other suggestion that might work is to at least make the archives of the ALL of the DNSO.ORG lists available for all to review or have someone volunteer to FWD any and all posts to those lists to the Domain-Policy, IFWP, and ORSC lists for all to review and participate OPENLY. Michael Sondow wrote: > Milton Mueller a écrit: > > > > I stand corrected. What I meant was that the leadership of the dnso.org > > is attempting to do this. > > Thanks for modifying that comment. I feel badly about all these polemics > going on to the utter obliviousness of most of the people who actually make > up dnso.org. There has been a lot of commentary on this list about the > confusing and not altogether straightforward situation of the dnso.org > lists, but most of it has been concerned with limitations on interactivity > caused by the inability of non-participants to subscribe to the dnso.org > participants (and other) lists. The practical truth is that that lamentable > list has functioned conversely: it's the participants, the majority of whom > are only subscribed to the participants list, who haven't had access to > these discussions, rather than those not on that list missing something > there. > > Unfortunately, that doesn't make things any better, since the virtual > exclusion of the majority of the dnso.org participants (their own choice, > after all, since they could subscribe to discuss or ifwp or domain-policy if > they chose) tends to limit discussions of the dnso.org to the organizers and > drafting team, who don't determine policies and consensus in dnso.org, and > can only express their personal beliefs and prejudices, just like everyone > else. > > I guess my point is that we shouldn't lose sight of the fifty to a hundred > dnso participants who attended meetings and helped shape the draft > application, but who have never intervened in these discussions on the > public lists. They have been in an even more restricted position than the > ifwp list members, since they aren't even aware of the frustrations and > contradictions. > > > Michael Sondow wrote: > > > > > Milton Mueller a écrit: > > > > > > > No, what's really going on here is that the dnso.org is > > > > attempting to cut a deal with the trademark interests. > > > > > > Milton- > > > > > > The other assertions you made in your posting may be true; I have no > > > information one way or the other. But that the dnso.org per se is cutting > > > deals can't be true, since the vast majority of the participants in the > > > dnso.org have not been consulted. These people, who met in Barcelona and > > > Monterrey, are subscribed to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, but do not for > > > the most part read the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list or the IFWP list. Since all the > > > discussion about trademarks and membership are taking place on those two > > > lists, the dnso.org participants are not privy to what's going on. > > > > 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____________________________________________
