[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: Let's move on (was:Re: Sept. Berkman Ctr mtg cancellation)
Mikael and all,
Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> I feel like I'm wasting my weekend with this discusssion, but I will at
> least make one more post to clearify my position in this matter.
I would like to speak for our organization and say the we are pleasedto say
that we appreciate and admire your participation and hope that you continue to
participate in your usual constructive manner in the future.
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > > I don't know you, nor do I know the folks at the Berkman Center. I
> > > actually hardly know anyone in the IFWP process and I have no good name
> > > in this matters. But still I have a point of view, maybe not as
> > > articulated as yours, but it is my point of view.
> > Has anyone ever suggested you don't? Certainly not I.
> No, but in some postings lately someone proved that 17 individuals account
> for approximately 91 percent of all postings to this list. I guess these
> 17 individuals claim they have something more to give the process than
> others, otherwise they would hardly take up so much of the debate arena.
> Since I'm not among these 17 persons, but you are Mr Sondow, I just wanted
> to stress my right to have a say in this matter - as well as the
> self-choosen 17 individuals.
I don't look upon myself as "Self-Choosen" to be sure. I am simply
as spokesman for our organization on these matters. As far as I can ascertain
none of the 17 in that list is "Self-Choosen" either.
> > > The Berkman Center as well as loads of other prominent and well-educated
> > > people and organizations did put in a lot of time and effort to make the
> > > IFWP work.
> > Well, it hasn't worked. Not yet, at any rate. Not until there's a NewCo
> > with a popular structure and members.
> But you can hardly blame the Berkman Center for this. I attended the
> meeting in Geneva and I found it quite clear that the present part
> of the Internet community and Internet stakeholders wasn't doing much to
> reach consensus.
We would have to say that this is an accurate statement on it's face to be
sure.However we believe that we have compromised on several central points as
some others. But the biggest players (NSI and the IANA) seem to have little
in the broad stakeholder community's ideas and considerations.
> If one party says A and the other party says C you might
> reach consensus at B. In Geneve the party stuck to their initial
> standings, and if you're not ready to compromise, you can never reach any
> agreements. That's one of the fundamentals of negotiation.
Agreed. Yet even NSI was willing to conceed originally to a Initial
MembershipOrganization. The IANA has not and it appears will not concede to
fundamental point that seems to have broad consensus.
> I say we move
> on, and not waste more time looking back. For example - how do you want
> the board to constructed to satisfy your neeeds?
That question has already been answered. The Initial board must beelected by
a Initial Membership Organization. The fact that the IANA
is not willing to concede this fact does not diminish it as a fact.
> Do we have consensus on
> this list for your suggestion? Fine - then let's do some serious lobby
> activity to gain support in the rest of the Internet community. Throwing
> dirt at the Berkman Center won't do you, them, the IFWP or me any good.
Agreed, but denying already fairly well established facts by the Berkmancenter
and a few others doesn't either. It is a two way street.
> Lead, follow or get out of the way!
We believe that we have taken that lead. At considerable expense we have
hadour representatives crisscrossing the globe to drum up support and gather
that we have not represented in the draft we submitted to the NTIA, this list
and the US Congress, as well as the Presidents office. We have also publicly
announced that we are backing up our Draft Proposal or whatever Draft that
the NTIA or the US Congress determines is appropriate with a Self perpetuating
non-revocable trust fund currently holding approx. $25m and still growing. I
yet to see any other effort that can match this at the present time.
> > > Now it's time to look forward, and try to achieve the best
> > > possible solution out of results so far.
> > No, sorry, but not out of results so far. Out of the results we will
> > produce.
> So - produce!
As I have just restated, we have. >;)
> > > Let the historians discuss the
> > > past.
> > The past has become the present, and risks becoming the immediate
> > future, when Mr. Zittrain and others who have not had the courage to
> > stick by the IFWP come back here and begin making proposals. It's not
> > for us, who have stuck by the IFWP all summer, through thick and thin,
> > to ask what we can do for Jonathan Zittrain, who has returned here
> > because the IFWP looks likely to become again a force in this affair,
> > but for Jonathan Zittrain to ask what he can do for the IFWP.
> Zittrain never left the building, did he?
I personally don't know weather he did or not. I hear allot of ideas, some
goodand some besides the point from Mr Zittrain. I have yet to see any REAL
tangible support from the Berkman center, such as willingness to help
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email email@example.com.
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.