NSI Stands with Internet Community

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 12:48 PM 8/5/98 -0400, 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!
>
>The current iteration of the IANA By-laws are completely
>counter to many of the consensus points that came out of
>Reston and Geneva.  Yesterday, I pointed out that the new
>By-laws have ignored consensus on membership.  Today, Andy
>pointed out that the new By-laws have ignored industry 
>organizations.
>
>And now you have, thankfully, pointed out that the new
>By-laws have ignored consensus on an "interim board."
>In fact, there is not a single reference in the new By-laws
>to an interim board, only an initial board.
>
>In many ways, this second iteration is *worse* than the 
>first.  Karl Aurbach has pointed out that these By-laws 
	http://www.iana.org/bylaws2.html
>appear to be designed to entrench the existing power 
>structure in an organization that is unresponsive to the 
>Internet stakeholders, without any guarantees that
>it ever will be.
>
>Unless these games end, I will most likely support another
>set of By-laws.  <snip>


After a quick review, I'd say that NSI has done a good
job of incorporating the consensus items from the IFWP
into a set of corporate documents.  

As far as I'm concerned, these are now the base documents
for the Internet community to work off of.  It looks like
Singapore will be very interesting!

Until then . . .

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com


At 07:51 PM 8/6/98 -0400, Clough, Christopher wrote:
>All IFWP Contributors and interested parties:
>
>Based on recent discussion on the IFWP (and other)
>public lists, it is clear that the IANA draft documents
>do not adequately reflect the IFWP current consensus
>as is noted in
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ifwp/post-geneva-consensus.html.
>
>Instead, they disenfranchise other significant user and business
>interests. This is unacceptable to the community, and we feel
>compelled to present an alternative set of documents which
>reflect the consensus being developed through the IFWP process.
>
>As a result, we have assembled a set of consensus-based
>provisions that define an organization that can be responsive
>to users and reflects some of the realities of the growing influence
>of the variety of stakeholders on the Internet. There is no pride of
>authorship here. These drafts (Articles of Incorporation and By-laws)
>reflect the IFWP consensus thoughts as best as we could
>capture them. They also incorporate the best from other drafts.
>We have attempted to describe a structure that reflects the
>consensus that most of us heard at Reston and Geneva.
>
>Please see http://198.41.3.10/policy/ifwp/ for major features of
>these proposed drafts and links to Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
>
>Don Telage
>Network Solutions