RE: Better Safe, than Sorry! (was: It's been a pleasure)

[stef@nma.com]

I agree that an effort to create a complete new competing draft is not
appropriate, as it is clear from signals I see that vry serious erforts are
underway to do just that among the key contesting parties.  Unless we are
involved in those  discussions, we can only succeed in wandering in the
weeds.

Also, I beliee that we have already ariculated what we find wrong with the
IANA draft, so that repeating all that again will also not be very useful. 
I think that the parties trying to draft up a satisfactory resolution are
cleary aware that if they fail to satisfy the great mass of consusnsus and
discussion vectors or the IFWP process and its predecessors on numerous
mailing lists, that it will be hell to pay.  Such a failure will simply
lead to a huge eruption of the community and a reset-restart will follow.

So, I suspect that at this time, just making sure that they know that we
know that they know that they are under the gun to produce a consensus
result i he best that we can do.  If any of the three listed "knowings"
fails, they might think they can get by without satisfying the community
consensus.

Cheers...\Stef

At 12:20 08/09/1998 -0700, Pete Farmer wrote:
>On Sunday, September 06, 1998 at 10:28 AM, Jay Fenello
>[mailto:Jay@Iperdome.com] wrote:
>
>>As an insurance policy, we might want to prepare 
>>another set of consensus documents and Board of
>>Directors for the New Corp.  
>>
>>That way, if the current negotiations result in 
>>an unacceptable solution, we will simply present 
>>Ira with a second set of By-Laws.  If he is true 
>>to his words (and I believe that he is), he will 
>>not accept either solution until we come to a 
>>mutual agreement.  
>>
>>This ensures the disenfranchised participants 
>>of the IFWP process a seat at the table ;-)
>
>Jay,
>
>I believe that there is a better approach than to create a complete set
>of "consensus documents."
>
>I suggest that those who now feel "left out" of the process come up with
>a FINITE (3 to 5) number of key concerns/amendments to IANA's current
>draft.
>
>I have previously expressed my concern over the following, and have
>proposed amendments on IANA's comment list (comments@iana.org):
>
>1) The document does not spell out how the at-large members of the
>Interim Board will be chosen.
>
>2) The document does not establish a timetable to enact an open election
>process for at-large Board members.
>
>3) The "sunshine" provisions of Article IV need improvement; I have
>suggested that the language from Article 6 of the NSI draft replace that
>of the IANA draft.
>
>Others may have different views, or different items to add to this list.
>
>If reasonable people can propose well-reasoned changes to the IANA
>proposal, then we can hope that reasonable people in the Administration
>will listen.
>
>We should help these reasonable people out by focusing on KEY concerns,
>and not getting bogged down in minutia.
>
>Pete
>______________________________________________________________________
>Peter J. Farmer                    mailto:pfarmer@strategies-u.com
>Strategies Unlimited               Voice: +1 650 941 3438
>201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205  Fax:   +1 650 941 5120
>Mountain View, CA 94040            WWW:   http://www.strategies-u.com