Michael and all,
Michael Sondow wrote:
> Karl Auerbach a �crit:
> >
> > > > In other words, one person, one vote. One organization, zero vote.
> >
> > > Sounds like a reasonable proposal. Onno's is interesting, too. But what's
> > > the point of just passing around these good alternative proposals amongst
> > > yourselves (ourselves), when the creation of the SOs is proceeding without
> > > them? Why not send them to the SOs, where they might do some good?
> >
> > So far I have yet to see an SO proposal that isn't designed to promote the
> > interests of its authoring body.
> >
> > The most extrame case being the only "Protocol SO" proposal which has a
> > membership structure that is written to admit of exactly one member with
> > any actual power. (The other "members" are essentially placebos positions
> > with no ability to do anything substantive.)
> >
> > So, I don't have much faith in the SO proponents doing anything other than
> > being special interest groups unless they are prodded to do so with a very
> > sharp stick.
> >
> > That stick is ICANN -- it should refuse to accept such proposals.
>
> The Barcelona/Monterrey DNSO has a quite broad base of participation:
> registries, ccTLD NICs, ISOC, various telcos, business and trademark groups,
> etc. It's in the process right now of broadening that base. It stands a very
> good chance of having its application accepted by ICANN, probably with the
> proviso that it negotiate to include still other contingents.
It may be accepted by the ICANN, and of course with its false and fraudulent
influence by adding SELECT individuals to the "Participants List", such as
Joe Simms and Mike Roberts, it appears that there are some shenanigans
going on with DNSO.ORG as has been pointed out. With these known actions
and questionable influence from the ITU, it cannot gain anything close to
wide exceptance as a consequence or these actions. In addition by FAR
both the Barcelona and Monterrey meetings were not well represented
and at Barcelona some 20 odd folks were actually in physical attendance
and in Monterrey maybe 100 attended is graphic evidence that the
DNSO.ORG "DNSO" effort does NOT show broad support by any means.
The reasons as Karl, myself as spokesman for INEGroup and many others
on this and many other lists have pointed out are many and varied as has
been pointed out very clearly and in great detail.
>
>
> If people with proposals for alternative membership structures don't propose
> them, the DNSO will have no choice but to adopt whatever has been proposed,
> under the expediency that something is better than nothing.
There is something better which Karl has eluded to and so have many
others, please see www.dnso.net for more details.
> That will retard
> the process, which could easily end up in some way not beneficial to the
> interests of the people on this list who have alternative, often better
> methods to propose. Denying them to the DNSO is helping no one.
Nothing has been denied to anyone that has been paying close attention.
>
>
> Standing on the sidelines waiting for others' efforts to fall apart isn't
> always the best tactic. If you can affect the situation so that it becomes
> more or less what you want, why refuse to do so?
I believe that Karl's post which you are replying to did just that.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________
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
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
