Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)
Patrick and all, Patrick is of course inaccurate here. Do yourself a favor and disregard these musings... Patrick Greenwell wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote: > > > In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our > > suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record > > in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections? > > I have an objection. INEGroup does not exist. > > I am doing my upmost in upholding the civil discourse rules of ORSC, and > the above is merely a statement of fact. > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com > (tinc) > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ 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
[ifwp] Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)
Anyone can offer any comments they wish on any of the major lists and our "Joint Meld Draft" Team will capture htem and do what they can with them. It will be most helpful to supply replacement text when commenting that some section does not say what you want it to say. By supplying such text, you vcan avoid the confustion and hassle of hoping that our editors will produce the text you want to see inserted. Of course, when others offer other texts, then either our editors will find a way to meld them or will have to pacakge them for public debate. We are resolving to not have the drafting team make judgements on behalf of the stakeholders unless the fixes are fairly obvious, and even then the results have to pass muster in public review. We will strive to not let the text become locked up and ridgidly immutable. It has to remain plastic and revieable for this exercise. So, we offer no restrictions on what you do or how you do it, but all the work will be done in the public orum and will have to pass muster in open review. No one needs our permission to propose whatever they wish. WE only require that it pass muster in public review. I hope that this will work as well as we hope it will, and that it will build the required consensus for the results. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:25:35 +: } }Jay and all, } } We have no problem with Andrew as being the "Editor" of any jointly }devised DNSO Draft, as long as there is a vote on any amendments }suggested. Any objections? } } In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our }suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record }in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections? } } We will also be making amendment suggestions to the latest }"Merged Draft" That You Jay sent to the relevant lists based on }our memberships vote. Any Objections? } }Jay Fenello wrote: } }> Hello Everyone, }> }> Andrew Kraft, the Executive Director }> of AIP, has volunteered to be the Draft }> Editor for the *draft* new draft. FWIW, }> I met Andrew in Boston, and I think he }> would do a good job. (Any objections?) }> }> While comments have been light, I do }> believe that we have two areas of }> consensus. }> }> First, I believe that we do *not* have }> consensus on the question of constituencies. }> I suggest that the draft reflect this point. }> (Any objections?) }> }> Second, I believe that we *do* have }> consensus on removing the line "Due process }> to be acceptable by each individual registry, }> individually." in the INTRODUCTION section. }> (Any objections?) }> }> Jay. }> }> P.S. To save bandwidth, we might want to }> designate a URL as the official consensus }> draft. }> }> >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:39:07 -0500 }> >To: "John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> }> >From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> }> >Subject: RE: Draft New Draft }> >Cc: "DNSO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "DNS Policy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, }> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] }> > }> >At 1/31/99, 04:52 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote: }> >>DNSO and ICANN decisions should be reached via a process that respects due }> >>process. However, due process does not require that every affected party }> >>must agree with decisions before they are implemented. I would find the }> >>paragraph in question to be acceptable if it were modified in accordance }> >>with Antony Van Couvering's suggestion (i.e. removal of the last sentence). }> > }> > }> >Agreed. }> > }> >Jay. }> > } }Regards, } }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
[ifwp] Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, jeff Williams wrote: >> In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our >> suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record >> in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections? Patrick Greenwell wrote: >I have an objection. INEGroup does not exist. In support of Patrick's comment, one of the recurring themes on this and the domain policy list is the authenticity of statements made by "Jeff Williams". I don't want to re-engage that debate (please!), but since he gives voice to openness and transparency, and objects to "censorship in any of its forms", its about time for him to put his merits where his mouth is. He will not because he cannot. Let'sput the pedal to the metal. Since he has not, cannot provide independent validation of the existence this corporation (where none has been found using all legal attempts to do so) and the methodology used in developing proposals, polling, etc, then we have merely a man (or several working around the clock) who wants to elevate his/their status by fradulently imposing upon us his/their reports of completely invisible/secret/nameless support. I strenuously object to any further attempts to obfuscate the ICANN/DNSO discussion by bringing in this imaginary set of stakeholders (10K - 85K, his reports vary), pie-in-the-sky polling statistics, and other fradulent devices. Messages coming into my overcrowded mailbox with the J.W. name are now "returned to sender". Now back to our regular program. Ellen Rony Co-author The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com // === ISBN 0879305150*=" / +1 (415) 435-5010 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ )Tiburon, CA // \\ "Carpe canine" __ 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
[ifwp] Re: Consensus Call (was: Draft New Draft)
Jay and all, We have no problem with Andrew as being the "Editor" of any jointly devised DNSO Draft, as long as there is a vote on any amendments suggested. Any objections? In the next two or three days INEGroup will be finishing up our suggestion for a "Consensus Draft" and will include our voting record in that report to the relative lists. Any Objections? We will also be making amendment suggestions to the latest "Merged Draft" That You Jay sent to the relevant lists based on our memberships vote. Any Objections? Jay Fenello wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Andrew Kraft, the Executive Director > of AIP, has volunteered to be the Draft > Editor for the *draft* new draft. FWIW, > I met Andrew in Boston, and I think he > would do a good job. (Any objections?) > > While comments have been light, I do > believe that we have two areas of > consensus. > > First, I believe that we do *not* have > consensus on the question of constituencies. > I suggest that the draft reflect this point. > (Any objections?) > > Second, I believe that we *do* have > consensus on removing the line "Due process > to be acceptable by each individual registry, > individually." in the INTRODUCTION section. > (Any objections?) > > Jay. > > P.S. To save bandwidth, we might want to > designate a URL as the official consensus > draft. > > >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:39:07 -0500 > >To: "John B. Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Draft New Draft > >Cc: "DNSO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "DNS Policy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >At 1/31/99, 04:52 PM, John B. Reynolds wrote: > >>DNSO and ICANN decisions should be reached via a process that respects due > >>process. However, due process does not require that every affected party > >>must agree with decisions before they are implemented. I would find the > >>paragraph in question to be acceptable if it were modified in accordance > >>with Antony Van Couvering's suggestion (i.e. removal of the last sentence). > > > > > >Agreed. > > > >Jay. > > Regards, 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
