Re: [ifwp] Re: announcement from the Berkman Center

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ellen and all,

Ellen Rony wrote:

> Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> >The steering committee of the International Forum on the White Paper
> >has been asked by the Berkman Center to publish the following
> >message, sent earlier this week to the committee, to relevant public
> >lists.
>
> You got three out of four.  You might also post this announcement on the
> iana.org discussion list.
>
> > With the White Paper
> >as the guide, and your ratification meeting as a bellwether, the
> >parties who have been doing the most drafting and negotiating to date
> >will be most strongly compelled to come to compromise in the public
> >interest.
>
> Would the Steering Committee please address two very basic concerns:
>
> 1.  How can people such as myself, who are interested parties but cannot
> fund a cross-country trip to Boston, be included in the ratification
> process?

 Ellen, if you need sponsoring for the trip, we would be happy to assist.But in
essence you make a good point here.  As at ever other IFWP conference,
we will offer live internet based Video conferencing should we be ask to
do so.

>
>
> 2.  Will these final documents be put forward for ratification on an
> all-or-nothing basis?

  It is our understanding that it WILL be on and all or nothing basis.  Thoughwe
STRONGLY disagree with this proposed CLOSED meeting and may
seek a court injunction to prevent it should we have other "Interested parties"
be in agreement that this proposed meeting does not meet the IFWP's own
agreement that ALL meetings be a OPEN, FAIR, and TRANSPARENT
process as was defined in Reston.

  Any stakeholder, that is not allowed to directly participate in the
dispensation
or discussions of such a proposed dispensation of public resources, in in effect

being disenfranchised and discriminated against.  And for this reason we believe

that this proposed meeting behind closed doors with out the equal ability of any
and
ALL participants being able to actively participate violates US law.

> Can they, instead, be voted on in sections, so that
> we can hone compromise in the areas that are most difficult to find
> immediate acceptance?

  THis would be much more acceptable and is possible.  Weather it will be
allowedis yet another thing.  As I (We) have recommended from the start this
should have
been done with the creation of a voting application available on the IFWP site.
It
could easily be done now within 24 hours.  We would be happy to create it.

>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Ellen Rony                              "qui me amat, amat et canem meam"
> Co-author: The Domain Name Handbook                  //
> http://www.domainhandbook.com                     *="  ____ /
> erony@marin.k12.ca.us                                \     )
> +1 (415) 435-5010                                     ||  ||
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com