Dear all, I was not thinking that it would have been necessary to answer this one, because I instinctively treat rumors for what they are, just rumors, and tend to react only to facts, but seen the magnitude of the debate that followed, I was evidently wrong. So, let's come to it. First of all, a credit to Gordon. He very correctly made clear in the subject line what that is: a rumor. Stef is right in saying that who knows should speak, so that the rumor can be confuted or confirmed as early as possible (and I was wrong in not answering it for what I knew when first I saw it). But then, Gordon, I personally don't think it is appropriate for a journalist to blow around rumors without prior "direct" verification. Let me just make an example in a different field. Imagine an article titled like this: "Rumor: the recently born European Central Bank stroke a deal with the US Federal Reserve to modify their credit policy and interest rates to favour speculation against the Japanese Yen" You may agree that neither the Financial Times nor the Wall Street Journal would have published this without confirmation from an ECB Board Member (if not even Duisenberg himself) *and* from a USFR Governor (if not even Greenspan himself). Maybe the Sun, or other scandalistic tabloid woud have done it, though. But then the question arises: Gordon, would you like to be considered more like a reporter of the FT or like a reporter of the Sun? (for US readers, "like a reporter of the WSJ, or a reporter of Vanity?") Second, another credit: to Stef, who modified his first impression, and is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to DNSO.ORG. I don't want to get into arguments on "who's fault it is", but I agree with Stef (and others) when they point out that, would there have been a sufficient circulation of information, the rumors would not have spread out. Well, my personal opinion is that there has been an incredibly frustrating absence (not just lack) of information, and this not only towards people that are "outside" the DNSO.ORG, but even to most of those who are well "inside" the process, or at least believe to be ;>) (supposing that "inside" vs. "outside" could be a meaningful distinction in today's Internet) I lack the words to define properly the situation: I had to spend most of yesterday in private phone calls chasing people to get pieces of information in order to be able to send the message that I promised with reasonably likelihood to provide correct (if albeit not complete) information. This said, I hope that all those who are sitting at the window singing in choir "This is not an open process! This is not an open process!" will also take their share of responsibility. To see people sit on their hands while others are working hard towards openness, transparency, all-inclusiveness of this process, against the (few) that didn't understand so far that this is the only way to go if we want to look to the future and not to the past, is even more frustrating. Moreover, this attitude is not helping at all the Internet to grow. If this process fails to be performed in the proper way, it will give no results of any substance. And I, personally, will not blame it only to the "reactionary" people who are trying to keep things "the old way", but also, and even more, on the "enlighted" people who don't want to get their hands durty. The former at least have the excuse that they work for their own interest, and don't know any other way to do business. The latter, instead, should know better, and act as a driving force for the change. But back to the matter. "Mr. anonimous" wrote: > First, they add legitimacy to the dnso.org application. > True. I claimed this already several times: credibility of an application is proportional to the constituencies involved. Leave some major ones out, and you're not legitimate. > They also > have made claims that they have big companies and a lot of money > behind them, > oh, really? ;>) > and they've already spoken with a few ICANN members who > are telling them that the dnso.org application will be approved. > I, personally, do not believe statements by anonimous sources involving not well identified targets. Which are the members "Mr. anonimous" pretends have told "them" (them who?) that the DNSO.ORG application will be approved? Also, I assume Mr. anonimous really meant "Board Members", a.k.a. Directors - ICANN Member is a different thing, and we are having separate fights for this. > Secondly, their intention is to get as many of their people on the > 'names council' as possible, and then pass a resolution that no new > TLDs shall be added until the WIPO study is complete. > Who is the subject here? If it is "the DNSO.ORG group", meaning all those who participate to the DNSO.ORG process, this is self-evident. But then, if Mr. anonimous meant by DNSO.ORG group a well-defined set of people, naming them would help. > After that > delay, they intend to start slowly, introducing one TLD at a time, > starting with CORE, and passing a resolution that the 60-day wait be > reinstated. CORE has already agreed to this. > This has not only not been agreed by CORE, but not even discussed. Not only that, if this item is going to be put on the agenda of any ExCom or General CORE meeting, it will be dismissed as a silliness. (the 60-day wait is against the basic interests of a Registrar that has to compete in a free market) > My source tells me that this is already a done deal, and that the big > money and big companies behind it won't allow anything else to happen. > Well, maybe big money and big companies may wish this to be true.... Regards Roberto __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
