Jay and all,
Jay Fenello wrote:
> [cc: list edited]
>
> At 1/10/99, 01:15 AM, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Einar Stefferud a écrit:
> >> So, we would appreciate it if you would belay your crusade of making
> >> false statements about what ORSC is or is not doing.
> >
> >I made no false statements. The ORSC is attending a closed meeting from
> >which the end-users and others have been excluded, after claiming to
> >repudiate closed processes. The ORSC has the choice to refuse to go and
> >demand that the meeting(s) in Washington be open. If you don't do this, it
> >must be because you are looking for your advantage, despite the fact that
> >others, myself included, are being denied the chance to participate.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Before I describe where I agree with you, let
> me describe where we disagree. You appear to
> believe that every single meeting in an open
> process must be open.
>
> I believe that there *can* be closed meetings
> in an open process, if they are part of a *fair*
> process. And while I expect to learn more about
> this closed meeting before it actually occurs,
> until I know otherwise, I will assume that it
> is part of a fair process. That's why I am
> currently planning on attending.
Yes Jay you are correct in saying that there can be closed
meetings in a fair open process. But under these circumstances,
in that the DNSO is not even really formed yet, this circumstance
does not meet reasonable criterion for a CLOSED meeting on
Jan 21st to occur, first of all. Secondly, as WE (INEGroup) along
with several others that have submitted bylaw proposals and have
also been part of this process, from the beginning, seem to be
excluded attending or appointing anyone from our group (INEGroup)
to attend.
References:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
and, That Antony Van Couvering specifically left out specific comments and
suggestions that I submitted to the DNSO.ORG [EMAIL PROTECTED] list
as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well, referencing,
http://www.dnso.org/docs/dnso-progress-update-jan8.htm, for example.
It is difficult that this Jan. 21st CLOSED meeting is legitimate in it's intent
and is defiantly not legitimate in the manner in which it is being conducted.
Our original submission was on Jan 4th regarding bylaws for a DNSO
see: http://www.dnso.org/discuss/mail-archive/00504.html . We have
since updated that submission as of yesterday to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, however no archives are available
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the updates to [EMAIL PROTECTED] do not
yet reflect yesterdays posts to that list.
>
>
> With that said, I agree with your concerns
> about the process involved in the upcoming
> closed and open meetings.
>
> Michael, many of the leaders of Open-RSC have
> been involved in this debate a long time --
> we've seen games before, a lot of them.
>
> That's why I wrote the following inquiry on
> another distribution list (edited to protect
> private email status):
>
> At 1/8/99, 04:17 PM, Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> >Since you've been through this, maybe you can
> >explain why XXXXX was offerred a role as a
> >"contributing organization," while BWG, ORSC,
> >the DNRC, etc. were not?
> >
> >This is a particularly interesting question,
> >given that XXXXXX was admittedly *not*
> >involved with the planning of this event.
> >
> >What exactly are you "contributing"?
> >
> >Jay.
>
> Remember, nine organizations are designated as
> a "contributing organization." Each of these
> organizations get to invite three people to a
> closed meeting. In turn, these attendees *can*,
> depending on the process rules for the closed
> meeting, impact the entire event.
And this by design is a CLOSED process, which is why
we (INEGroup) must agree with Michael. As such, any
CLOSED process is in direct violation of the ICANN "Proposed"
Bylaws as well as the White Paper.
>
>
> I don't believe that anything is going on here,
> but asking questions like this is required to
> keep the process honest.
Sure do Jay. And it is relatively easy (See my comments above),
to see that their is little or NO interest on the part of the self appointed
DNSO.ORG bunch in being honest with respect to this Jan 21st meeting.
I personally am shocked that you can't see that plainly.
>
>
> So, once again, I suggest that we give the
> meeting organizers a chance to describe their
> event. If there are problems with their process,
> we should be prepared to help them fix it. If
> their process is sound, then let's have a great
> meeting and get this DNSO off the ground.
The process obviously has problems Jay.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc.
> 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
