No Stakeholder consensus Considered in IANA/NSI closed Compermise discussions wasA New Beginning

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Don Heath wrote:
>
> > >The Internet community has expressed concern
> > >at the closed and limited nature of the current
> > >negotiations occurring between the IANA and NSI,
> > >especially given comments that no further input
> > >will be required from the IFWP participants.
> >
> > Hmmmmmmm.  I am unaware of the "Internet community" expressing
> > concern over anything like this.  If anything, "they" are quite
> > positive about these current developments of IANA and NSI!!
>
> Among those who are aware of the IFWP process and especially
> among those who attended the various regional conferences, there
> is in fact a good deal of misgiving on the peculiar way in which
> the process ended, with the wrap-up conference cancelled because
> IANA and NSI refused to attend.

  Ira, Jim Dixon is quite correct here.  Many of us in the commercial sideof the
Internet industry have some very great concerns with this latest development
between the IANA and NSI at the exclusion of the vast majority of the
internet industry Stakeholders.  We find this development particularly
troubling,
as do every commercial industry that we have been in direct contact with.
We would like for the NTIA to propose that both the IANA and NSI
be advised by the NTIA to follow the IFWP process, as you Ira, and Jon
Postel promised before the Reston conference and adhere to the tone and
language of the White Paper.

>
>
> This sense of frustation and concern is plainly evident on the
> email lists used for public discussion of these issues.
>
> On the other hand I know few people who are "quite positive"
> about the current developments at IANA and NSI.  The IANA drafts
> ignore the recommendations of the White Paper, they ignore the
> consensus conclusions of the EC-sponsored meeting on these
> issues in Brussels on 7 July, and they ignore the consensus
> results of the IFWP.

  Ira, Jim has hit on the crux or the concern here very pointedly and we
alsofeel that in ignoring the EC and the IFWP consensus results, especially
in the areas of not providing a voting process for election of BOard members
and council members as well as no general membership is counter productive
in the long term health or the Internet as well as not providing for a stable
INternet environment.  All stakeholders must be viewed as equals here
if that stability is to be maintained and insured in our view.

>
>
> The new corporation described by these articles and bylaws has no
> membership.  It has a board that selects itself.  It has articles
> and bylaws that can be changed casually without any sort of
> reference to the outside world; no hearings or public notice are
> required.

  Yes, and Ira, this is very similar to how the IANA created ARIN, whichwas
hotly contested by a few that were aware of that event occurring.  The
result's seem very similar to the set of bylaws for the ARIN, where
accountability
to the Internet stakeholders was not provided with ARIN.  Many of the
Internet stakeholders were or are now very unhappy with the ARIN situation, and
would
very much be concerned if the New non-profit corporation called for in the
NTIA's white Paper were to be consummated in this same manner.

>
>
> This board, which has responsibility for great assets, can change the
> fundamental nature and objectives of the corporation without any sort of
> notice at all.  In fact, only the sketchiest sort of reports on any
> activity are necessary, and these only every year.  In short the board
> of IANA's proposed new corporation lacks any accountability.

  Yes, and without this Stakeholder/Membership accountability, you wind upwith
effectively no accountability at all to the Internet stakeholders at all.
This would be dangerous to the stability of the Internet.

>
>
> We are told that the drafts are being changed to reflect
> NSI's concerns.  This is, I imagine, a positive development
> from NSI's point of view.  I have also been assured that
> several other parties have dialogues going with IANA.  That's
> nice for them too.  But it is not the open process envisioned
> by the White Paper and embodied in the IFWP.

  We also agree with Jim Dixon on this point as well, and also feel thatif
openness and transparency is to be done away with trust and stability
in the internet medium will be damaged greatly as a medium of commerce
and could cause great economic instability, as has been seen in recent
weakness in the international Internet related markets of late.

>
>
> > >Some of these members have decided to meet in
> > >Boston on the 19th of September as originally
> > >planned.  I would like to suggest the following:
> > >
> > >-    That the Steering Committee immediately change
> > >     the mission of the IFWP to include organizing
> > >     activities designed to foster the implementation
> > >     of the IFWP consensus points in the New Corp.
> >
> > I will vote no to such a suggestion.  It is not only highly
> > unproductive, it is likely counter-productive and will only
> > introduce confusion.
>
> The steering committee has never been a policy-making body.
> Its sole purpose has been the provision of neutral venues
> for IFWP meetings.
>
> Setting a mission for the IFWP is a fundamental act of policy
> making.  As such it is outside the scope of the steering
> committee's activities.
>
> In the end the mission of the IFWP must be decided by its
> participants.  If those who have been involved in this process
> choose to meet in Boston and choose to call that meeting an IFWP
> meeting, who can stop them?  If the IFWP steering committee
> refuses to be involved in that meeting -- and no such decision
> has yet been made -- then arguably the steering committee
> simply isn't doing its job and needs to be reconstituted.
>
> And this takes us to the heart of the matter.  The steering
> committee has been packed by people who have never had any
> interest in the mission of the steering committee, which is
> providing neutral venues for IFWP meetings.  Their interest
> is entirely in policy questions.  They are on the steering
> committee solely to pervert the operations of the committee,
> to make sure that only meetings which meet their policy
> objectives occur, and that such meetings as do occur are
> engineered to meet those objectives.
>
> So Jay's request for a change in the mission of the IFWP is
> inappropriate.  What is really needed is a clarification of
> the mission of the steering committee itself and the introduction
> of sufficient structure to permit that mission to be accomplished.
>
> Yes, I grant you, it is very late to be making these changes.
> But then again, perhaps it isn't.  Since the IFWP process has been
> frustrated, since this open process has been blocked and we find
> ourselves shut out from behind-closed-doors negotiations between
> the two Federal contractors involved, perhaps the IFWP process
> does indeed need to be continued.
>
> > >-    That the Steering Committee immediately sanction
> > >     the pending event under our new mission, and that
> > >     it begin planning an effective campaign to see
> > >     this process through to conclusion.
> >
> > After almost three years, this complex issue is striving toward
> > reaching the beginning of a solution.  Your proposal will do nothing
> > but possibly derail it.  We have done our job in the IFWP; it's
> > time to move on.
>
> The IFWP promised an open resolution of this problem and in fact
> made more progress on this issue than any other activity in the
> preceding three years.  Your argument is that what was obviously
> working should be junked in favor of what obviously did not work.
> This is not a convincing argument.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
> tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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