[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: NTIA Filing by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Enir and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hi PeterD;-)...
> We are going to have to agree to disagree, as you suggested below.
> Our findings are that our proposal, submitted as it was, complete with
> an incorporated shell, has been helpful to the NTIA process of
> resolving how to deal with all the proposals and comments.
> The fact that ORSC included all the critical improvements from the
> BWG, and that our ORSC Proposal pretty well matches most of the
> comments about problems with the ICANN proposal, at least suggests
> that our proposal provides a best fit to the over all consensus.
Respectfully we would of a course disagree in that you section dealing
withIndividual Membership is quite inadequate. However we do recognize that the
ORSC effort is worthwhile. Any proposal however that does not include
and equal Initial Individual Membership Organization as our plan outlines
we feel cannot meet the needs of All of the stakeholders and users in the
Internet community. We also believe that the Sections of the ORSC proposal dealing
with funding are unbalanced and inadequate in the extreme. Our plan would already
provides for perpetual funding without greatly burdening Individual Members
unnecessarily as we have provided for a Non-revocable Perpetual trust fund that
is currently funded with $25m.
for further information on our proposal.
> But, I will have to leave it as an exercise for the list to verify
> this answer. Which leaves you and I agreeing to disagree;-)...
> I guess we will have to just wait till the end of the game to find out
> who was right.
> >From your message Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:52:55 -0400:
> }Hi Stef,
> }[ You wrote: ]
> }. . .
> }> We did run into a disagreement at the end of the process, where-in
> }> some BWG advocates felt that actually submitting a full peer proposal
> }> with an incorporated shell was too contentious and would be taken as
> }> the sign of an effort to disrupt the process with a divisive proposal.
> }Actually, as one of the people who felt your approach was
> }too contentious, I would like to make clear that my
> }concern was not that it would be perceived as "an effort
> }to disrupt the process". This implies an intent to disrupt.
> }Rather, I felt that the *consequence* of your approach
> }would be divisive. In other words, it could force more
> }people to start posting "I support proposal X" messages,
> }rather than "I agree that there are good ideas here, let's
> }merge them" messages.
> }In reviewing the comments on the government web site over
> }the past few days I do see a number of such messages. I
> }can't say if any came about as a result of your
> }submission, but I don't want you thinking my objection was
> }that you intended to sow discord. Merely that in my own
> }particular humble opinion, it increased the potential for
> }discord. I believe you and the others who operated under
> }the ORSC banner are honourable, commited individuals. I
> }just reserve the right to disagree with your actions in
> }this case.
> } . .
> }> Since submitting our ORSC proposal, we have received confirmation that
> }> our expectation was correct, and that doing what we did was positively
> }> helpful to the NTIA process, and was definitely not harmful as some
> }> people claimed before ORSC submitted its proposal, and as some people
> }> persist in claiming still.
> }Again I assume you are referring at least in part to my
> }messages on this topic, since I haven't seen many others
> }taking the public stand against your approach I have.
> }Again, I have to submit a clarification.
> }When I talk about perception, I refer not only to the
> }reaction of players within the U.S. government. In fact, I
> }have no direct contacts there and don't know how they're
> }reacting to this entire mess.
> }I *do* have contact in the general Internet industry, and
> }see the affect this entire debate is having there, and in
> }the larger context of associated players through the media,
> }and my concerns stand. We can agree to disagree, but we
> }should make sure that we understand each other's point of
> }view if we do so.
> }> . . . So, I suggest that you all look at the content for evaluation
> }> and stop picking on ORSC for having the courage of our convictions to
> }> proceed with packaging the IFWP, BWG and ORSC issues together in the
> }> most useful possible way, with real bylaw texts to evaluate and
> }> compare.
> }Stef, I do hope people can disagree with you without being
> }told we're picking on you. Without knowing the specifics
> }of who you would include under this umbrella I can't know
> }if you include my posting comparing IANA's and ORSC's
> }development methodologies (for example), but I obviously
> }don't regard that posting as picking on ORSC. If you
> }really support open processes, you obviously need to
> }support reasoned criticism, too.
> } - peterd
> } Peter Deutsch, (514) 875-8611 (phone)
> } Bunyip Information Systems Inc. (514) 875-8134 (fax)
> } <email@example.com> http://www.bunyip.com
> } "The survey is not designed to permit statistically valid comparisons
> } with past ones. Still, the tables show some interesting trends."
> } - from Dun & Bradstreet's fifth annual
> } exclusive survey for Marketing magazine
> }To view the archive of this list, go to:
> }To receive the digest version instead, send a
> }blank email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> }To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> }To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> }Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email email@example.com.
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email email@example.com.
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.