would that it were so (was) Re: NSI Stands with Internet Community

[Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>]

Sorry Jay, I have to diasagree.  I think you are being naive.  NSI's taking
the trouble to do this is the best gift the potsel/ISOC camp could have
gotten.  There is a very large segment of this list (perhaps the majority)
that will not support the NSI draft simple BECAUSE NSI wrote it.  I was
thinking earlier today that SOMEONE OUGHT to put together a draft.  Now
that NSI has done it, good for them.  Unfortunately they did it in the
typically NSI imperious fashion with king telage sending his PR agent
Clough to to the actual "work" of making the announcement in this mail list.

Although I would be delighted to be wrong, I will predict that this draft
will not be taken seriously until Telage and batista take the time to dirty
their hands with the rest of the rabble.

That Richard sexton has to come forward to NSI's defense here in educating
broomfield rather than NSI itself is truly remarkable.  it is also another
reason why NSI has problems.  the sad thing is that I fear telage will go
down with his ship rather than admit that the problems exist.

Don telage, I thank you for having someone come up with the draft, but
since no one in your shop seems willing to join this discussion, let me
suggest that you would have had a much better shot at having influence by
having someone else float the draft as their own.






>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
>
>
>--
>DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)           http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
cook@cookreport.com                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************