Re: [ifwp] Re: AN IFWP CONSENSUS-BASED PROPOSAL

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> > >>I agree -- in fact, I will go further: I don't think that a large
> > >>membership is desirable, because once the membership exceeds a certain
> > >>size it will become extremely difficult for the membership to influence
> > >>the actions of the Board.
> > >>
> > >>What I think that we need is some sort of structured membership in
> > >>which members are associations organized in classes.
> > >
> > >Have you considered the option of NOT
> > >having a "Corporation" in the center but,
> > >instead, just a forum where representatives
> > >come together ?
> >
> > Yes, one of the models presented in Singapore
> > lent intself very well to an institutional framework
> > (ie a locus of bottom up coordination) rather
> > than an incorporation (ie a top down unbroken
> > line of authority).
>
> Two observations:
>
> *       First, the White Paper clearly requires that we create
>         a US-based corporation.  The US government has certain
>         responsibilities and a certain authority in this matter;
>         these will be transferred to the new corporation under
>         certain circumstances.  No corporation, no transfer.
>
> *       Secondly, this top-down vs bottom-up dichotomy can be
>         misleading.  If ISPs or ISP associations can elect Board
>         members to represent their interests, and then the Board
>         sets policies which govern the RIRs which in turn allocate
>         address space to ISPs, this is no less of a bottom-up
>         organization than that described in the IANA proposals.

  Yes Jim, this is much less of a bottom-up representation.  In order to meetthe
requirements of the White Papers stated requirements for a "Bottom-up"
representation it must come from the "Stakeholders", ALL stakeholders.  What you

state here does NOT do that.

>         The only difference is that ISPs get to represent themselves
>         rather than being represented through the RIRs.

  And this leaves out individuals.  And this is a fundamental flaw with
thecurrent IANA iteration of its bylaws, and why we prefer NSI's proposal
for bylaws and articles of incorporation, which by the way the IANA has yet
to propose any.  Why is that?

>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

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