Re: [ifwp] Re: Boston compromise mtg

[Michael Sondow <msondow@ic.sunysb.edu>]

On Sat, Sep 05, 1998 at 07:30:21PM -0400, 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.

How about seeing it as a place where everyone involved in the IFWP
process could get together to hammer out a final document representing
the interests of everyone involved, like the White Paper said. Did that
ever occur to anyone?