> Kent Crispin writes:
> > Dave, I have indicated in a prior mail message that I think that the
> > basic structure and charter of CORE should be rethought because there
> > is no effective oversight. Is the IAHC's mind completely closed on
> > this topic?
>
> The precise structure of CORE is still somewhat fluid -- note the lack
> of a proposed CORE-MoU in the posted document. I think the general
> details are probably not something we are anxious to change, but I'm
> sure that coherent proposals for a reasonable oversight mechanism
> would be considered.
>
> Perry
> Speaking for myself, not for the IAHC
It seems to me that when Mr. Metzger speaks in terms of "details"
as something that "we are not anxious to change", he is both speaking
specifically for the IAHC, rather than himself, and making it pretty
clear that the IAHC has, indeed, made up its mind on the issue and that
the "draft" is being looked on by the IAHC as a much more finished
document than they have been insisting it is.
Unfortunately, this reminds me a lot of my local City Council, which
makes a habit of assuring the citizens that "there will be plenty of
time for public input" on controversial decisions, right up until they
pass a crucial legislative milestone, at which point their chorus
changes to "there were plenty of opportunities for public comment
earlier in the process".
At this point, it is probably time for me to state that I have been
contracted to produce a feature article on the new TLD/new registries
issue for the magazine "Internetwork" (for whom I also write the Web
Technologies column). I'll be submitting that article in late
February, for publication in early April, which, if the IAHC adheres
to its projected schedule, will just about wrap the space between the
closure of applications and the announcement of the "winners" in the
new registry lottery--which very much does look like a done deal, from
what I've been reading of Perry's posts and those of other IAHC members.
I regard that perception on their part as premature. I hope that the
actual decision-making process will turn out to be more open to input
from the user community (unlike that of my local City Council, for
instance) than it now appears to be.
I understand that Mr. Denninger's habit of threatening to sue and
otherwise behaving in an uncivil manner tempts you folks to retreat into
the bunker of your existing position. I think that's a mistake. You
don't beat a bully by running away, and you don't conduct open
policymaking by producing a non-negotiable "draft" proposal.
As a person who has only what any other regular user of the Internet
has at stake in this process, I think I'm about as close to a neutral
observer as you're going to find on this list. I've long since
abandoned any plans that *I* entertained of applying as a registrar.
And I'm here to tell you that *my* perception is that *you* (the IAHC)
appear pretty high-handed, stubborn and unresponsive, thus far. In
particular, the constant referral to the wording of "the draft", as if
it were holy writ, bothers me a great deal. As a professional writer,
I understand pride of authorship fairly well..and I also understand
that those writers who are not their own worst critics are too often
incapable of separating their self-esteem from the aspects of their
work which are deserving of criticism and correction.
I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the
concept of a draft proposal is one of a document put forward as a kind
of stake in the ground--a concretized set of ideas serving as a point
of departure for fuller, more substantive discussion of the issues,
with an eye toward achieving both consensus and synthesis of the best
alternatives raised. I sincerely hope that that is the model the IAHC
will follow.
I also hope that you will not let the artificial March deadline push
you to prematurely close the colloquoy. I'd much rather see you get
this puppy right the first time than see you bring a fundamentally
flawed STANDARD in "on time".
Regards,
Thom Stark
Email: thomst@netcom.com URL: http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key
(510) 526-9600 voice STARK REALITIES fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457 El Cerrito, CA ZIP 94530-0457
Regards,
Thom Stark
Email: thomst@netcom.com URL: http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key
(510) 526-9600 voice STARK REALITIES fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457 El Cerrito, CA ZIP 94530-0457