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

["Mikki Barry" <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

Michael Dillon said:
>  
> > > But it is not our job to tear apart the proposal and discard 
> > > it because of its flaws. It is our job to *FIX* the flaws. In order 
> > > to do that we don't need criticism of the proposal; instead we 
> > > need suggestions for better ways of structuring the organization. 
> > > We need suggestions for improvements; not critiques. We need 
> > > a movement towards consensus and compromise. 
> > This assumes that we wouldn't be better off drafting something 
> > from scratch that accurately reflects the consensus items that 
> > have already been established via the IFWP process and drawn from 
> > the White Paper.  
>  
> No it doesn't! Here again you are wasting your breath criticizing me 
> and criticizing Postel instead of proposing something better. Are you 
> here to argue or to work on a solution? It makes no difference 
> whatsoever if a draft proposal accurately reflects the consensus 
> items. That can be hashed out in the *PUBLIC* discussion process 
> that follows. Since the discussion process is public, anyone can speak 
> and propose any changes they want even if those changes 
> fundamentally alter the base proposal. The base proposal does not 
> tie anythng down; it is not a foundation that must be adhered too. 
> It's sole purpose is to focus the discussion so that we can get 
> results from this process. 

I have been working on a solution.  I attended the Reston IFWP conference, the 
Geneva IFWP conference, have read the mail from various lists, and have been 
working rather consistantly on a solution.  But this proposal ignores all the 
work that we have already done to achieve consensus.  THAT was the proposal of 
something "better."  It is out there, public and available.  There are two 
more meetings and possible a wrap up in the works.  I do not feel Postel's 
incorporates the consensus of the prior meetings, or the mailing list 
discussions, and will not incorporate the consensus achieved at the future 
meetings.  For this reason, I feel that it should be scrapped and we should 
start from what we already have.
>  
> > Regardless of the motivation, this particular proposal does not 
> > reflect the work we have all been doing in the IFWP process; a 
> > process that Jon Postel endorsed.  This particular proposal also 
> > does not include the controlling "Articles of Incorporation" 
> > which override the bylaws.   
>  
> Maybe they haven't changed from the previous proposal. Did you ever 
> think of asking Postel why he didn't include them? Or is that too much 
> to ask of you? Perhaps you feel more comfortable imagining the answers 
> to questions rather than asking the questions? 

I have asked about the Articles of Incorporation actually.  I have not 
received a response.  As for incorporation of consensus, I'll be glad to ask 
why that hasn't occurred.  I have cc'd this message to comments@iana.org and 
await the response.
>  
> > Again, regardless of intent, the business and user communites are 
> > cut out of the process. 
>  
> You are simply being silly here behaving like a spoilt child who has 
> to stamp her feet and scream in order to get daddy to give her what 
> she wants. After Ira Magaziner creates the possibility of this process 
> and hands you the *POWER* to do something significant in creating the 
> new IANA, why do you insist on behaving like a powerless child who 
> must petition the king for largesse? 

I will not respond to personal attacks.
>  
> It seems that too many of you have spent too much time in 
> lobbying government that you have no idea how to exercise power when it 
> is handed to you. No one is cut out of the process. If you don't see 
> what you want, then negotiate and you may be surprised at what you 
> receive. Negotiation is a far more effective tool than sniping and 
> pouting. 

IANA asked for comments.  We have provided them through the IFWP process which 
is public and available, and through these mailing lists.   Why do you 
consider that "sniping and pouting?"  For someone who advocates looking at 
substance and not motivation, I think you should take a second look at your 
own actions.



Mikki Barry               A-TCPIP/Domain Name Rights Coalition
President                                  www.domain-name.org