Re: [ifwp] Re: Boston compromise mtg

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Jonathan Zittrain wrote:

> The meeting didn't appear to make sense to us after IANA went from
> non-commital to "no" and NSI went from "yes" to non-commital, and
> neither would be prepared to discuss their draft in progress.  Instead
> of a compromise session to synthesize opposing views we'd essentially
> be creating a competing document and dividing views further--something
> we just weren't prepared to do.

Jonathan,

I think you reacted to quickly.  The process is far from over.  Your
goals remain valid. The flaw was in the value you placed in having the
IANA and NSI settle their differences.  The process has its own
validity.  The question is what we ALL agree upon.  The thought that
the rest of us are irrelevant is a non-starter from many points of
view.

Several people may be interested in coming to Boston on Friday.  Are you
willing to discuss contined support
of the process or are you guys out?

Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma