--- Begin Message ---
Jay Fenello wrote:
> Who would have thought . . . I agree with Dave.
> Let's hope they get their act together soon.
>
First of all, I would expect you and Dave to agree on a lot of things
outside the DNS dispute. Now, is the time to discuss them.
Second, there is less than a week before the Reston meeting and
we have not begun any substantive or procedural preparation. This might
be explained by the speed of events. Unfortunately, it is actually by
design. Clearly, there is no consensus on that design in this group.
Dave's note bares careful reading and appropriate action. Let's go
through it, together, and discuss what needs to be done if WE are to
participate in this process or simply be the audience at someone elses
play.
> At 11:02 AM 6/24/98 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >1. Open planning
That means on a discussion list, like this. They could start by
discussing the agenda. We also have to determine who can
participate and how participation shall occur i.e. only attendees?;
only GP commenters or anyoine who wants to participate?;
individuals or only trade organizations? On-line before, during and
after the event?
> >I note that there is no public forum which is discussing plans for the 3
> >IFWP meetings. This means that matters such as venue, timing and agenda
> >are being decided in an entirely closed manner. That would seem to be
> >rather contrary to the many pleas for openness we have all heard for so
> >long. In the spirit of the improved style that so many have sought, would
> >it not make sense to begin applying those improvements immediately?
Can we agee that this is the forum and forward invitations to all the other
liststo join this discussion?
> >2. "Invitations"
> >
> >Upon inspecting the IFWP page for "participants" which primarily lists who
> >is invited, I still note that some stakeholders who submitted testimony
> >have not been invited and are not listed. I know this because I am one
> >such non-recipient. Since there are others listed who would seem to be no
> >more or less a stakeholder than I, it creates the serious question about
> >criteria being used for generating invitations.
You didn't tell the postman where to forward your mail!
> >For that matter, why is this event not fully open?
That question needs to be addressed to the GIAW/IFWP. Perhaps they willjoin the
discussion.
>
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma
--- End Message ---