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

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

Michael Dillon says: 
>  
> > 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. 
>  
> If you truly feel that way then *IGNORE* the proposal and draft your 
> own proposal that meets your requirements. But don't waste 
> everybody's time and yours by criticizing Postel and drawing 
> everybody's attention to his work. 

I really wish you would stop trying to twist my words and ideas.  The tactic 
is not working.  
>  
> > THAT was the proposal of something "better."  It is out there, 
> > public and available. 
>  
> Where is this proposal? If it was posted to this secret IFWP mailing 
> list, I only found out about this list through a forwarded message 
> from the list. This list is not mentioned at the IFWP website. And 
> I cannot read the secret archive of this list since it is protected 
> by password and the instructions at the end of this message are wrong.

The consensus that was reached at each meeting was posted to this and other 
lists, as well as web pages like http://www.ifwp.org, http://
cyber.law.harvard.edu/ifwp/post-geneva-consensus.html, Ellen Rony's site and 
others. 

> I've got news for you. You have no right to scrap Postel's proposal 
> nor does anyone else. Postel has as much right to speak and to 
> issue proposala as anyone else. You have no right to suppress his 
> opinions or to suppress his views of how to incorporate the 
> meeting consensus points into a working organization. That's not how 
> you build consensus. 

Interesting that someone who would crow loudly about not stifling anyone's 
right to speak would tell me and others to shut up and not criticize Postel's 
proposal.  (Keep in mind that I am not criticizing Jon Postel.  I don't even 
think he wrote this draft.  I think his lawyers did.  I am making comments 
solely regarding the proposal, same as if it were written by anyone else)
>  
> You build consensus by saying: "That's a very interesting proposal 
> Jon, but I think you missed the point of the Geneva meeting. For 
> instance your proposal says X but I think that if we do Y then we 
> more fully reflect the consensus of Geneva. Here's a proposal that I 
> think will be more acceptable to most people". And then follow it 
> with some details. Not handwaving, not smart remarks, but cold 
> hard details. Without the details, your proposal is contrary to 
> every single point of consensus at both the Reston and Geneva 
> meetings because it is secret but reston and Geneva were about openness. 

As mentioned before, the "cold hard details" are being written up and will be 
presented soon.
>  
> > I have asked about the Articles of Incorporation actually.  I have 
> > not received a response. 
>  
> Please ask Jon to answer this publicly. 

Jon, please answer this publicly.
>  
> > As for incorporation of consensus, I'll be glad to ask why that 
> > hasn't occurred. 
>  
> This is not a question of fact but a posturing of your own 
> personal opinion. Postel has already stated that he modified his 
> proposal based on the outcome of the Geneva meeting. He is under 
> no obligation to explain why he did not incorporate some points 
> of consensus in a manner which you can clearly understand. It's 
> his proposal and he can pick and choose as he wishes. Maybe he 
> couldn't figure out a good way to incorporate everything. 
> I don't know and I don't care. Jon is not God! He does not have to 
> submit perfect documents and do all our work for us. That's what 
> the public discussion is for and I wish people would stop trying to 
> earn brownie points by attacking Postel since it does not advance 
> the process one bit. 

Strawman arguments won't really work here.  The second proposal by IANA did 
not incorporate the consensus points of Reston or Geneva.  That much is clear.  
Given that this process was set to achieve consensus, on its face the proposal 
is faulty.  My personal opinion (postured of course, as I am currently sitting 
down) is that a better starting place for creation of the new corporation is 
by writing Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws based on the consensus 
achieved in Reston and Geneva, and modifying them as necessary consistant with 
the consensus of Singapore, wrap up meetings, mailing list discussions and 
other input.  That's my opinion, and I have as much right to it as anyone else 
has to theirs.  
>  
> > I will not respond to personal attacks. 
>  
> You just did. 

Since you have admitted you made a personal attack on me, I now know that you 
can indeed recognize one.  As such, please, in future, offer opinions and 
discussion points about the information on the table, rather than attack the 
people whose opinions they are.  



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