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

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 11:41 PM 9/13/98 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >I have to disagree.  The meeting in Boston on 19 September was
> >planned as an IFWP meeting and people are going there to attend
> >an IFWP meeting.  It is too late for this to be an IFWP wrap-up
> 
> It isn't an IFWP meeting.  The IFWP cancelled it's meeting.  There's
> nothing wrong with having a meeting, of course, but you do not serve any
> positive interest by mis-labeling it.

I know that it's really difficult for you to understand simple English.
But I said "it was planned as an IFWP meeting".  It was.  I was there 
when we planned it.  I said "people are going there to attend an IFWP
meeting".  This is a description of what some people are doing.  

The IFWP hasn't cancelled anything.  The steering committee cancelled
the wrap-up meeting that was to be held in conjunction with the Berkman
Center meeting.  I was one of the first people on the steering committee
to agree with this.  Nevertheless, the steering committee is not the 
same thing as the IFWP.
 
> Is there something about the official announcement from the IFWP that
> wasn't clear?

The "IFWP" has made no official announcement.  The steering committee,
of which I am a member, cancelled the wrap-up meeting.  

> Perhaps the idea is that the IFWP SC can call a meeting, but can't call it
> off?

That's pretty close to it.

> >> 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.  
> >
> >This is over the top.  NSI has agreed to come to a wrap-up 
> 
> "Abandoned the IFWP" is an overly strong statement, true.  However, it IS
> true that they bailed from the "wrap up meeting" that was scheduled.  It is
> also true that IANA and NSI are talking privately.  

It is also true that NSI has stated both publicly and privately that 
they will attend a/the wrap-up meeting.
 
> No one is trying to prevent your having any meeting you want.  Some of us
> are, however, pointing out that the "process" which has been the IFWP isn't
> having it's planned Boston meeting and it is a misrepresentation to label
> your own meeting as part of the IFWP.  
  ************************************
> 
> Have your meeting.  Discuss what you want.  That's fine.  But you serve no
> constructive purpose by mis-labeling it.

Dave, why have you suddenly become the custodian of the IFWP label?

The steering committee agreed early in the game that many meetings
could be woven into the IFWP process.  It would seem inappropriate to
pretend that a meeting of IFWP participants in Boston, a meeting of 
people who are there because they bought airplane tickets to attend
an official IFWP event, is not in some sense an IFWP meeting.


[Note: "it's" is a contraction for it is.  "Its" is the possessive form.]

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65