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

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

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > The point is simple.  The steering committee is not the same as the 
> > IFWP.  They are two different bodies.  The IFWP as such has not cancelled
> > anything.
> > 
> >>>The "IFWP" has made no official announcement.  The steering committee,
> >>>of which I am a member, cancelled the wrap-up meeting.  
> >> 
> >> You find that sort of "logic" credible?
> > 
> > Credible?  I am carefully and correctly distinguishing two logically
> > distinct things.  Yes, it is credible.
> 
> Jim, the hair-splitting, tortured contortions of logic you are going
> through here are truly painful to watch.  On Tuesday, September 8 you
> wrote:
> 
>     "The steering committee has always in fact simply sanctioned
>     meetings that someone else organized.  It has done this just by
>     saying that it was OK to use the IFWP name."

Please notice that this is a description of practice.
 
> According to YOU the Steering Committee has only one power -- the
> power to sanction a meeting with the IFWP name.  That is, it is INDEED
> the Steering Committee that decides what is "IFWP" and what is not.
> And the SC has most definitely decided that there is not going to be 
> an IFWP meeting in Boston next week.  Period.

First, I did not say that this is the only thing that the steering
committee has done.  Secondly, I did not talk about powers: I just
talked about practice.

Elsewhere I have pointed out that the fact that we failed to agree
on a clear mandate for the steering committee and any rules for its
operations has led to ever more serious problems.  I was serious.  The 
IFWP steering committee has no clear mandate, no agreed-upon powers, 
and no standard practices.  This should have been dealt with at the 
beginning.  It wasn't.

> And on Sunday, September 6 you wrote with considerable more
> rationality than you are now exhibiting:
> 
>     "If you want legitimacy, you need the participation of large
>     groups, not just a few dozen individuals.  You need participation
>     from all over the world, not just the US and Canada.  You need
>     participation from all sectors: from the Internet industry, from
>     education, from government, from business, from user groups."

Yes.  This confers legitimacy.  

> But for whatever strange reason you now think it is important that a
> possible gathering in Boston of a tiny handful of people, representing
> no one in particular, be blessed with the IFWP name -- a move more
> likely to discredit the IFWP than anything else. 

No, I am just doing what I often do: I am pointing out the obvious.

We have no right to deny to a group of IFWP participants meeting in 
Boston the IFWP name.

Personally I would prefer that there be no splintering of the IFWP 
process, just as I would prefer that there be a harmonious end to the
process of creation of the new corporation.  In fact I think that the 
two are intimately related.  

If the NSI/IANA deal excludes input from the rest of the Internet 
community, if the open, univeral, conciliatory IFWP process is to be 
frustrated by this, then it makes sense for those who are disenfranchised 
by the NSI/IANA deal to put together an alternative formulation that
better reflects the IFWP results.

--
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