Re: [ALSC-Forum] No Funds for Proper Analysis

[Derek Conant]

Hang loose everyone. That's Mai Tai.

Derek Conant wrote:

> In Stockholm I was 6 hours ahead.
> In Kona now I'm 6 hours behind.
> I will get to this after a few Mai Ties.
>
> Mahalo!
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Derek and all stakeholders,
> >
> > Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > Who knows what they are talking about here?  There needs to be a process
> > > here that funds the development and advancement of the constructive
> > > questions and comments being submitted by participants.
> >
> >   Agreed.  And the answers should also come from those same or other
> > participants as they are stakeholders.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > What we have here is a failure to obtain the funding necessary to
> > > present any meaningful comprehensive analysis, compiled by experts
> > > presenting statistical data and information concerning the subject
> > > matter being addressed by the DNSO.
> >
> >   I agree.  However one has to determine who is and expert.  That
> > can be a difficult task if not one that is really not accurately
> > determinable in some instances.  As such, an varied approach
> > would be a better method.
> >
> > >
> > > This is primarily why I expressed the necessity of ICANN Approved
> > > Proposal Organizations (APOs) at:
> > > http://dnsga.org/announcements/atlarge_5june01.html.
> >
> >   Who and under what criterion are these "APO's" determined?  And
> > how are the principals decided that will govern this?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > APOs can be profit and non-profit organizations that qualify to
> > > represent their studies, constituencies and/or members.   ICANN will
> > > need to evolve toward a structural model and system that gives
> > > organizations the incentive to fund comprehensive analysis, compiled by
> > > experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> > > subject matter being addressed by ICANN Supporting Organizations.
> >
> >   Agreed here as well.  However (See above comments/questions)...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The APO competition component is clearly apparent in the DNSO process
> > > and forums.  This is clearly evident by the existence of established
> > > groupies in the DNSO process and forums and their refusal to acknowledge
> > > and investigate constructive comments and positions from one not in
> > > their group.
> >
> >   Groupies?  How and under what criterion to you delineate the
> > difference
> > between "Groupies" and "Experts"?
> >
> > >  It is also apparent that said groupies feel threatened
> > > when constructive comments and positions are presented.
> >
> >   As do other experts if they are opposed to any findings another group
> > of experts that are not one of you proposed "APO's"...
> >
> > >  Groupies exist
> > > in the DNSO process and forums and they appear to be preventing the
> > > development and advancement of constructive dialog if the comment and
> > > position contribution does not agree with, or does not come from one in
> > > the established group.
> >
> >   Again as do "Experts" in contrast to other "Expert" groups or
> > individuals....
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If ICANN is going to allow the formation of groupies in its processes,
> > > then these groupies that believe that they know what they are talking
> > > about should step up to the plate with money to fund comprehensive
> > > analysis, compiled by experts presenting statistical data and
> > > information concerning the subject matter being addressed, that proves
> > > the groupies position.
> >
> >   As should the ICANN BoD.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The ICANN Supporting Organizations and ICANN Board should be relying on
> > > experts presenting statistical data and information concerning the
> > > subject matter being addressed.  ICANN should not be developing its
> > > policy and standards upon a process that is not funded and relies on
> > > non-experts.
> >
> > Again one persons "Expert" is another's "Groupie" to use your
> > terminology
> > here...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ICANN and the Internet is mature enough now to begin the process of
> > > restructuring its Supporting Organizations and to engage the APO
> > > concept.
> >
> >   Possibly.  However your idea of this concept is not well developed
> > given the comments I see here and you URL posted in this post.
> >
> > >  The APO concept would invite organizations from around the
> > > world to fund ICANN internationalization and the development and
> > > advancement of international policy and standards.
> >
> >   The ICANN BoD has been trying to do this.  However they have had
> > some difficulty in gaining the creditability to achieve this goal thus
> > far.
> >
> > >  The Governments of
> > > the world would also have incentive to fund ICANN internationalization
> > > through APO processes.
> >
> >   Yes they might.  However again, it is necessary to insure that this
> > "APO" process is well developed and understood.  Currently your
> > idea of the "APO" seems to be a bit short on the well developed side.
> > Therefore the understanding will lag as a result...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am submitting this for constructive criticism.
> >
> >   Thank you.  And you have ours...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Derek Conant
> > > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208