Re: [ifwp] Re: Questions about Ira's deadline

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

I have to agree with Eric.

Our strongest play for Boston is to prepare a set of 
Articles and By-Laws consistent with the IFWP consensus 
points, and a slate of Directors for the New Corp.  

To summarize, many of the largest IFWP organizations 
(i.e. NSI, CIX, AIM, Educause) have abandoned IFWP to 
negotiate directly with the IANA.  Whether this was by 
choice (CIX) or necessity (NSI) is beside the point.  

The fact remains that the "compromise" meeting has been 
replaced with something that looks more like a contract 
negotiation.  

If we want to be included in these negotiations, we must
bring something to the table.  We don't have buckets of 
money, we don't have professional lobbyist, and we don't 
control significant network infrastructure.  

We do, however, have a set of consensus points from a 
series of world-wide meetings that were geographically 
and sectorally diverse.  A proposal based on these 
results will be difficult to ignore.  

Because of this, we have considerable *political* power.

If the IANA+NSI proposal is unacceptable, we can simply 
present Ira with an IFWP consensus proposals.  If he is
true to his word (and I believe that he is), he will be
forced to reject them both until they are reconciled.  

This is a way to *guarantee* the remaining IFWP supporters 
a seat at the table.  This is our insurance policy.  Unless 
anyone has a better plan, I suggest it is our strongest play.

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com


At 01:09 PM 9/12/98 , Dan Steinberg wrote:
>Eric Weisberg wrote:
>> 
>> I am moving this item over from the Open Process list.  It is something we need to
>> understand and work within.  Patrick is very sharp in in his analysis.  I will add
>> what I have picked up in recent discussions with knowledgeable "players."
>
>As Jim Fleming might ask: Can you identify these "players"?
>> 
>> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > What is the real meaning of this deadline of 30 Sept.?
>> >
>> > It is a date meant to instill fear into the hearts of mortals... ;-)
>> 
>> > > Is it the concession that was made by those "some in the US govt."
>> > > (doublespeak for current White House thinking?)
>> > > allowing the USG to say on 1 Oct. , allright, you've had your chance, from
>> > > now on the USG Internet czar is going to rule by decree over all TLD's that
>> > > are not ccTLD's?
>> >
>> > The USG has no desire other than to be out of the whole mess.
>> 
>> I am told that the USG will probably punt the ball to some existing international
>> organization if the community does not provide its own solution.
>
>OK. I'll bite.  Who told you?  Sorry to be so blunt, but there has been
>too much mis-communication and interpretation for my liking.  Also,
>please define 'probably' while you're at it.  
>> 
>> > > Or is it just an honest device to galvanize people into action and to bring
>> > > pressure upon all participants to compromise where compromise is possible?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > > Is it  a device that can be re-used by extending the deadline?

>> >
>> > Yes. It is my understanding that from a legal standpoint, there is
>> > insufficent time to form the new corporation and then to tranfer U.S.
>> > Government assests to it. Any such actions require a reasonable amount of
>> > time for public review before such actions are taken. That appears
>> > extremely unlikely given this is Sept. 11th and the new organization is to
>> > be operational by Oct. 1. The deadline will have to be extended in order
>> > to meet legal muster. (again this is based on my understanding)
>> >
>> > > The current debate is perhaps not yet capable of producing a workable
>> > > solution to TLD self-governance, but it surely is activating people that
>> > > could play a possible role in new structures and it is bringing forth
>> > > idea's of unquestionable value.
>> >
>> > > Should the participants agree to have this process cut short by a deadline
>> > > if this would be an arbitrary one?
>> >
>> > My own opinion is: no.
>> >
>> > I developed (and refined) a saying as a result of these proceedings, which
>> > I refer to as "Patricks' Razor (probably a bit egotistical..)":  <a reference to
>> > Ocham's Razor, "less is more">
>> 
>> > A poor solution is not excused by the lack of a better one.
>> >
>> > What this means to me is that the process needs to come to a reasonable
>> > conclusion. If that means the extention of the Sept. 30th deadline, then
>> > so be it.
>> >
>> > The world, although some might disagree, is not going to end on Sept.
>> > 30th. The worst that will happen is that things will continue as they have
>> > been, and NSI will make some more money as monopoly registrar for .com,
>> > .net, and .org. This is far preferrable to me than the implementation of
>> > an ill-conceived "solution" that does not cover the basic issues and is at
>> > risk of significant legal challenge.
>> 
>> I am told that the real deadline relates to the personal desire of Ira Magaziner
>> to leave his current position sometime in October.  He supposedly does not want
>> this hanging, and then failing, after he leaves, with blame falling on him.  There
>> is also concern that his understudies lack the stature and ability to push this
>> through after his departure.  The "players" see this as creating a real, if a bit
>> undefined, deadline.   In other words, we probably do not have any time to
>> squander and had best operate under that presumption.  Next week's meeting in
>> Boston, whatever it is and whoever attends, must produce a draft if this process
>> is to continue and "we" be involved.
>
>One more time: who told you?  What evidence supports this speculation?
>
>Why is it necessary that next week's meeting produce a draft if both:
>* the process is to continue, and
>* "we" are to be involved??
>
>I fail to see how you get from point 'A' to point 'B' in your
>reasoning.   Further, what's wrong with people in Boston sitting down
>(or standing if there's no room) and hammering out a term sheet and/or
>working on an agenda for a more-widely-attended wrap-up meeting and/or
>working on strategies to 'sell' any points of agreement to a wider
>audience and/or IANA and/or NSI?  I think you are setting an

>unreasonable expectation on a meeting that may not be widely attended,
>doesn't have an agenda that I know of, etc.  I think you are setting up
>the meeting to fail.
>
>Even further (just about as far out as I get without artificial aids),
>we don't know (but can certainly speculate) if NSI/IANA will have a
>draft for us to look at.  If they do, it might be a good idea to do so. 
>If they don't, participants can sit around and speculate on what might
>be in the draft-to-be or they can do something productive, like work on
>ideas for the iterim board and/or other important details not found in
>either of the existing drafts.
>> 
>
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin
>Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
>J0X 1N0			e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>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____________________________________________
>