Re: [ifwp] Re: Postel's view of Internet users

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Jay Fenello wrote:

> After meeting Jon Postel and his attorney, Joe Sims,
> I was relatively comfortable with them incorporating
> the consensus points from the IFWP into their By-laws,
> and then letting the rest of the community make 
> changes to that base document.
> 
> I no longer support that approach!

Then you'll probably like a suggestion that I made on another list about
an evolutionary process that uses a base document, and a counterpoint
document as starting points. I'll repost that suggestion as it evloved in
a series of three messages with the subject line "Point Counterpoint".

> The current iteration of the IANA By-laws are completely
> counter to many of the consensus points that came out of
> Reston and Geneva.

Let's also remember that there are two more meetings which will develop
consensus points. This part of the process is not yet completed.

> Unless these games end, I will most likely support another
> set of By-laws. 

If everybody supports their favorite set of bylaws, there will be no
consensus and no compromise and no deal with Magaziner. The whole process
will then move into international government treaty negotiations and we
will have firmly established that the Internet must be a creature of
government control. I know there are some prominent people in this whole
process who *WANT* that outcome. You will know them by their actions not
by their words. But most of us really do want a self-regulatory process to
succeed.

--
Michael Dillon                 -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Communications Inc.      -               E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com