Re: [ifwp] Re: It's been a pleasure (was: The Lesson We Got)

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Michael Sondow wrote:

> > There is little doubt that the IFWP process is complete -- or finished,
> > if you prefer.  With the withdrawal of the Berkman Center (which, given
> > the refusal of either NSI or IANA to participate, is quite understanable)
> 
> How is this understandable? You mean because we can all understand that
> Harvard lawyers are only interested in having meetings with wealthy and
> powerful organizations?

The IFWP process had an underlying premise: that the IANA and NSI were
completely at odds, and therefore we needed someone to arbitrate between 
them.  Alternatively you might say that their standoff created an 
opportunity for the Internet community to come up with its own solution.

No one ever spoke about this, but it was always there.  We knew that
the suits from DC could never make a deal with the nerds in beards and 
sandals, the hard-headed corporate types had no common ground with the
idealists.  We were wrong.  

IANA and NSI apparently -- we still have no independent corroboration of 
this -- have told the Berkman Center that they have made enough progress
so that they see no value in going to the compromise meeting.  Without
their presence, the group at the Berkman Center didn't see any value in
a meeting.  Or perhaps, as Tamar Frankel would say, they felt that a 
meeting would put their reputations at risk.  People would see them as
other than neutral, they would say that they were using the meeting to
attempt to influence the process.

> > it would take a month or two to set up an alternative wrap-up conference,
> > if by some means the current steering committee could be bludgeoned into
> 
> To hell with the "current steering committee".
> 
> > doing so.  By that time the NSF contract will be completed the ramp-down
> > period and the NSI/IANA new corporation should have been incorporated.
> 
> The newcorp doesn't assume authority, according to the USG, until the
> year 2000

In theory the new corporation assumes authority almost immediately.
 
> > It is important to make sure that in fact IANA and NSI are coming to
> > agreement and it is important to make sure that the US government 
> > really is blessing this odd marriage.  But if they are and if it is, 
> > we have a done deal.
> 
> A deal between two illegal entities to produce another illegal entity?
> 
> > Are we really going to try to undo this done deal?  I don't think so.
> > If we are, the IFWP is the wrong vehicle for the attempt.
> 
> The IFWP is the only vehicle with a minimum of representativeness.
> What's wrong with the IFWP assuming its reponsabilities? Let the
> creatures of the IANA, NSI, and the ISOC go off to congratulate
> themselves on their charade. Good riddance.

What has made the IFWP unique is its breadth.  It brought together
the full spectrum of interests in the Internet community.  If you discard
IANA, NSI, ISOC, and their partners, then it isn't the IFWP any more --
for better or for worse.
 
> > There are going to be serious questions raised about the way in which 
> > this process was concluded.  It appears that the two parties involved in 
> > a US government contract have gotten together to decide exactly how that 
> > contract should be concluded.  But this falls outside the remit of the 
> > IFWP process.
> 
> No it doesn't. It's exactly what the IFWP was formed to prevent. Anyone
> who walks away now had no business here in the first place.

I can't agree.  The IFWP wasn't formed to prevent anything.  We came 
together to discuss the White Paper.  For many of us this what we were
talking about was what to do, specifically what kind of new corporation
should succeed IANA.

> > There are lessons to be learned from the IFWP.  I for one will avoid
> > like the plague anything run by a committee with no structure, no
> > voting rules, and no way of excluding those whose only purpose is to
> > obstruct.
> 
> Now that the obstructors are gone, why don't we get down to business?

Suggest something practical.  What precisely are you saying that we
should do?  

I think that the sensible thing to do is to wait.  Some sort of odd deal
is being stitched up.  

It is possible (but I think very unlikely) that everyone will be pleased
by the result. 

It is probable that many interest groups are going to be disadvantaged.
These will probably include ISPs.   Private gTLD claimants will almost
certainly be cut out.  I suppose that user groups (barring ISOC, if you
consider them a user group) will be left out.  What's interesting is that 
it is at least possible that CORE and the other remnants of the gTLD MOU 
will have been abandoned.

Let's wait and see, and then decide what to do.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65