Re: MoU discussion tactics (Re: Short Sighted and Unauthoritive)

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

Andi,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> Me:
> >> I personally think it's a good thing that they're taking and acting on
> >> comments and evolving their proposals. From IAHC draft to gtld-MoU to
> >> CORE-MoU (where these overlap--which is a sizeable area) there have been
> >> notable improvements, and I comment the MoU organizations for this.
> 
> Jeff:
> >  I think you mean COMMEND, not comment here, but none the less I
> >aslo feel the same way.  My concern and problem is it could easly
> >be so much better NOW rather than later.  I am not sure we have
> >time for LATER, as the drafters ans supporters of the MoU seem
> >to believe and have stated on several occasions.  In addition,
> >their Fee of $10k is to high, and centralized control of
> >gTLD's will never happen or be excepted WORLD WIDE.
> 
> First of all, yes, you're right about my type. Second, I agree with you
> here. I think the problem is that the MoU and eDNS contigents, who make the
> vast majority of the posts on most of the lists (or did until the DOC's
> request for comments shook things up a bit--now it's probably just a simple
> majority) are trying to phrase the debate in simple terms of MoU: absolute
> saviors of the Internet or Evil Incarnate. The reality, as I see it, is that
> they set up a bad system, but they are honestly trying to work within it to
> better the end result.

  Like in marching, you can start out on the wrong foot and than get
back
into step.  To use an analogy.  But it seems that the folks on the
gTLD-MoU are still out of step.  Their goals are good ones, their
methods and lack of achievment seems to be where they are having
trouble.  In addition their lack of honesty is certianly in question
as well.  The porblems with the DNS name space is not policy, but
technical in nature.  Yes, there are some policy issues involved,
but that is really on the parefaree, not the main problem.  Here
seems (Policy) to be where the IAHC and the gTLD-MoU seem to be
cocusing their energies.  That's fine, but it does little to
solve the concerns and problems in a tangable manner.  
> 
> So there are really three questions:
> 
> The first is whether they are really trying to be honest and open in
> discussions at this point. I think they're becoming more responsive as time
> goes by, if not necessarily open (they take outside suggestions and actually
> act on them, but they don't necessarily let outsiders see the discussion
> process). They're being more open with their processes and interim results
> than the eDNS and other coalitions, but much less open with their opinions
> along the way. I wouldn't say they're doing a great job in this area, but I
> don't think they deserve the kind of criticism they're getting here.

  I can't agree that they havn't deserved the critisim they are getting.
When you have folks like Dave Crocker sarcastic attitude and Rick
Wessons
posting put downs and complete lies about folks in a very personal
manner.
This kind of attitude does not deserve to have any governace
participation
what so ever.
> 
> The second question is, if it doesn't work--or if it does work and turns out
> to be terrible--where does the blame lie? I think here is where the MoU
> contingent deserves the criticism. The way in which the initial creation of
> the IAHC and the initial discussions were handled is what led to the
> original IAHC draft, which created the structure that the MoU contingent
> (being pretty much the same people who started the whole process) are trying
> to work within. As I've said numerous times, based on the way the system is
> set up, and the rate at which they're fixing the problems in their system, I
> think they're going to get there, but it'll be much too late when they do,
> and their system will have either become a footnote in history or a major
> problem for the Internet.

  I agree.  And would add, that if it is much too late, than the
proicess
is flawed and needs to redressed or replaced all together.  SO I would
say to this your point of them getting there is moot at best.
> 
> The third question is, simply, will it work? And I think I just answered
> that above.

  It ahs a chance.  But they must open up the process, streamline it,
and be compleatly inclusive.  Remove barriers.  But I don't see this
as a prevailing attitude within their postings or their structure.
Rather is ti to complex and lacks good leadership.
> 
> [Re: The iPOC members' use of "non-authoritative" .sigs on every letter]
> 
> Me:
> >> OK, that's fine, but when you are speaking authoritatively, can you
> please
> >> somehow let us know? You don't have to do anything as elaborate as the
> Pope
> >> when he wants to speak infallibly; I'm sure you can think of something
> >> simpler.
> 
> Jeff:
> >  I wonder.
> 
> I guess what I'm hoping for is some means by which they can distinguish
> between personal feelings, semi-official insider opinions, and official
> proclamations. The current way they're conducting themselves leaves only the
> two extremes. They're so afraid of their personal feelings accidentally
> being construed as in any way authoritative that they won't say anything
> authoritatively unless everyone involved has signed on... The IRS managed to
> find a way to give semi-official answers, advice, and information that's
> right somewhere between 75%-95% of the time (depending on which survey you
> look at), and I'm sure that the iPOC could come up with something at least
> that good.
> 
> That being said, the gtld-MoU FAQ is one example of something intermediate,
> and I'd like to see some more information of that sort, both in general and,
> in particular, in response to particular questions about the system. FAQs
> are supposed to be answers to frequently-asked questions so that people
> don't keep asking them; that implies that someone will still be answering
> the less-frequently-asked questions.

  As far as I can tell to date, very few questions have been
DIFINATIVELY
answered at all.

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com