Re: [ifwp] Re: Time for accommodation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 10:32 AM 10/21/98 -0700, Pete Farmer wrote:
> >However, I suggest that if you want things to move forward, disputing
> >their points will work against your aims.  (As I sometimes tell my kids,
>
> It is important to remember that, in fact, neither NTIA nor the US
> government dictates the final requirements for this organization.
> Otherwise, of course, it's call for "the community" to build that
> organization is hollow, at best.  It is fine for NTIA to try to reflect
> points it assesses from community concerns, but let us not be mislead into
> believing that NTIA is in charge, no matter how much their language would
> have us think otherwise.

  Certainly the NTIA is not "IN Charge" however they do have
considerableinfluence on determining the outcome.  If this was not the case, the
NTIA would
not have issued the White Paper.  Nor, might I add would we be having these
discussions.

>
>
> We need to watch carefully that their effort to reflect community concerns
> matches with the realm of the feasible, as well as watching that it
> accurately reflects the rough consensus of the community.

  Again there is that loose term "Rough Consensus".  This term cannot
beadequately defined in terms of the White Paper or the Internet
Stakeholder/user
community without some sort of verification process.  We believe that our
Proposal to the NTIA and the rest of the Stakeholder community provides
for that determination as our proposal provides for a straight forward Initial
Membership Organization that allows for ALL constituents and equal voice
in the determination of the BOD, determination of what Supporting Organizations
will be included, Committee members and directors of those Committees, and
a VOTE on any and all policies that may be put forward.
See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/ineginc/ineginc.htm
for further details.

> With respect to this latter "as well as" we need to be very careful that we do
> not confusenoisiness of a group with its representativeness of the larger
> community.

  Agreed.  And for this reason our proposal provides for that not to occur.

>

> We all want world peace, but it helps nothing to add that to the list of
> requirements.  More to the current topic:  if NTIA said that one of the
> requirements were to replace the DNS with X.500, would you think it
> "working against my aims" to dispute their point?  (And for those who miss
> the point, it's a trick question.)  Feasibility of a requirement is as
> important as the desire for it.
>
> >"Mom and Dad have spoken.")
>
> The analogy is telling, particularly due to its lack of accuracy.  NTIA has
> no meaningful experience with this organization or its activities, so that
> it's efforts at "parenting" are purely academic and/or political.

  This may be your opinion, however their actions do not appear to bare
youropinion out very well.

> Even more important is the range of global interests that have been "in
> charge"
> of the IANA activity for roughly the last 10 years.  Having the US
> government create pressures for change is fine; having it ignore the rest
> of the community is not.

  Agreed.  We certainly would not want another MoU experience.

>
>
> We would all do well to remember that "stability of the Internet" is not an
> abstract phrase with respect to IANA and Internet operations.  Hence,
> efforts to evolve the organization need to attend to immediate, practical
> concerns quite carefully.  One more time:  we are not inventing an
> abstraction, we are evolving a running, line-management organization.
> Attention to the pragmatics of the current operation and its requirement
> for decision-making continuity need to outweigh ideals for creating the
> perfect organization.

  In part we agree and in part we disagree.  It has become obvious to boththe
Internet community (Stakeholders/users) and the USG as well as even the
IANA that fundamental change is needed especially in light of the situation
concerning gTLD's and the allocations of IP address space.

>
>
> >There's some wiggle room here.  ICANN could accommodate NTIA with a
> >definitive statement in the bylaws that called for a membership
> >structure of some *unspecified* type by a *specified date*.  It need not
> >determine the membership structure right here and now.
>
> You are making a specific suggestion that is quite different from a
> requirement for immediate creation of a membership structure.  On its face,
> it is reasonable.

  Not only is it reasonable on its face, but as our founding fathers rightly
realizedis is good for both the should and long term health as well.  THis is
part of where
the phrase in the US Constitution, "We hold these Truths to be Self Evident"
comes from.

>
>
> The only problem is that for all of the calls for a membership structure,
> I've seen no meaningful consideration of -- and even less resolution of --
> the potential negatives, ranging from legal implications, to
> decision-making impediments, and logistics difficulties with respect to
> development, administration, representation or capture by special
> interests.  Were there a reasonable track record of such consideration,
> then making a firm requirement to have a membership structure might make
> sense.

  Our own US Government and well and many state governments stand asevidence to
your concerns quite well.

>
>
> >Again, though, the time for arguing/disputing is over.  It only causes
> >delay and, thus, further entrenches the status quo.
>
> Actually, jumping to requirements, without considering the practical
> aspects of their implementation, is an even BETTER way to ensure delay.

  Implementation is either simple or as you seem to contend it can be madeas
difficult and the human mind can conceive of.  The CHOICE is our to make.

> The "we'll figure out the details later" approach to instituting a
> requirement creates a deadlock once it is discovered that there is no
> reasonable solution.

  Exactly Dave.  Hence the need to have an INITIAL Individual
MembershipOrganization.

>
>
> >Accommodation needs to be the keyword.
>
> Accomodation requires reasoned consideration of the issues.  With respect
> to membership, that has not yet happened.

  Nah, it has indeed happened.  This issue has been approached for
mostconceivable angles already.  Have you not been paying attention?

>
>
> Let me use some example points to make clear the above statement is not
> just "opinion":
>
> 1.  The legal construct of a "membership" non-profit organization carries
> massive impact on the abilities of that organization to make decisions.
> Where has this been discussed and resolved, with respect to the operational
> requirements of IANA's line management activities?

  We submitted such an "Outline" to the IANA comments page over two monthsago
now.  Did you not review it?

>
>
> 2.  What examples are there of equivalent, global administration services
> that operate with an equivalent membership legal structure.  (Please don't
> rely on the word "membership" for the comparison.  The basis for comparison
> needs to be legal aspects of operational requirements and constraints.)

  Those requirement are already outlined in US corporate law, and most
Statecorporate legal statutes.  Please do your legal homework for more detail.

>
>
> 3.  The IETF is often referenced as being a "membership" organization.  In
> fact, it is nothing of the sort. It has no members and does not operate in
> the way that US, non-profit, "membership" organizations are required to act.

  And this is one the biggest weaknesses of the IETF.

>
>
> 4.  What are candidate solutions for a membership structure and how do they
> ensure timely and productive decision-making, avoidance of capture by
> special interests, and realistic global administration?

  Yet again we outlined this several times on this IFWP list and in
commentssubmitted to the IANA on several occasions.

>
>
> At 01:44 PM 10/21/98 -0400, Tamar Frankel wrote:
> >Comment on the feasibility of establishing membership. It is very feasible
> >to establish the same board as members and have them elect themselves.
>
> The physical ability to establish the form of a membership organization,
> with no effort at realizing the actual INTENT in having that structure, is
> an empty exercise.  As I note above, it succeeds in constraining the
> organization without resolving any of the difficult and meaningful issues.
> Hence, it is purely an academic exercise and, hence, it is more likely to
> create long-term delay than is deferring the membership requirement until
> concerns are more thoroughly considered and resolved.

  The lack of consideration is only the fault of individuals not taking the time
todo the research as we have done and posted our results based on a very indepth

research to the IANA comments page.  Please take the time to do your own
research or review our findings on the IANA comments section.

>
>
> >Thereafter, they will establish a true membership.  If they cannot do so,
> >they will be the only members and responsible to themselves (and God, I
>
> In this latter case, it is not a meaningful difference from what is already
> in the ICANN proposal, is it?  So what is the meaningful benefit, other
> than as a political exercise in satisfying the emotional concern that the
> organization be membership oriented?

  AN Membership Organization that is CENTRAL to the structure of theICANN
provides the proper White Paper requirement for public accountability
and stability of the internet by and for the Stakeholders.

>
>
> Please understand that I like democratic structures just fine and while the
> IETF isn't a formal membership structure, it functions as the most open,
> global group around.  However we need to be very careful that we institute
> a structure that works, rather than one that is satisfying to idealistic
> and emotional desires.

  Very much agreed.  In addition the Membership structure must also meet
theneeds and requirements of the White Paper for a "Bottom-UP" structure
comprised of the Stakeholder community, ALL of them.

>
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
> <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
>                                          Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
> Brandenburg Consulting
> <http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
> Fax: +1(408)273 6464              675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com