Re: [ifwp] RE: Last IFWP Consensus

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

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Michael,
>
> You wrote:
> > IFWP Participants,
> >
> > Certain persons have seen fit to declare that the by-laws proposal
> > submitted to the NTIA by the IANA is supported by large groups and that
> > the proposals submitted by the IFWP are not.
> >
> I don't know if you are referring to me or not, but I certainly am convinced
> that the IANA proposal is supported by large groups (just have a look at the
> list of comments).
>
> The point that puzzles me is your referral to "the proposals submitted by
> the IFWP".
> The IFWP didn't submit *any* proposal.
> There are two proposals (BWG + ORSC) who "claim" to gather the consensus of
> the IFWP, which is not the same thing.

  Wrong, there are at least three proposals that have wider support than thethe
ICANN/IANA Draft-5 proposal.  Ours for instance can document our
breadth of support.  Can the IANA/ICANN?  I doubt that they can.  If so,
let Joe Sims do so.

>
>
> The IFWP was a wide process, that involved hundreds of stakeholders in long
> and interesting discussions, and that produced several consensus points, and
> that cannot be hijacked neither by the BWG, nor by ORSC.
> I agree on the fact that these two organizations took some of the points of
> consensus of IFWP (not included in the IANA proposal), but this does not
> allow to claim to speak for the IFWP (and, as a matter of fact, they never
> claimed it).

  So what is your point here?

>
>
> >  Below is a brief
> > formulation of IFWP consensus proposals for NewCo by-laws which were the
> > outcome of an international congress under the auspices of the Argentine
> > Secretary for Communications, and uniting representatives of major
> > Internet stakeholders from more than twenty countries in South America
> > and Europe. (I won't insult its authors by translating it into English.)
> >
> Michael, the difference between the IANA proposal and this document is
> evident, but I don't see a lot of similarities with the other proposals
> either.
> For instance, about membership, they clearly say that individual membership
> has to be delayed until the mechanism are put in place to allow it (not to
> speak about the "proxy" problem).

  And this comment and/or statement is pure bunkum by the IANA/ICANN.

> The question of the "royalties" for the use of protocols is also absent.
>
> If your intention is to say that Latino America is still left aside in this
> process, I agree with you, and say loud and clear that this is a shame, but
> if you try to tell me that BWG and/or ORSC positions are more favorable to
> LA&C than IANA's, I have to disagree.
> BTW, in Buenos Aires I saw no members of the BWG, or of the ORSC - maybe I
> need new glasses :>))
>
> Roberto
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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