Re: [ifwp] Re: The "Balanced Diversity & Professionalism proposal

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

Stef and all,

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> Hi All -- No matter what kind of quantitative or qualitative slicing
> you do on the population of the globe, your schemes will always be
> subject to loud objection from numerous sectors that will claim to
> have been cut out of the representation picture.

  Exactly correct.  And for this reason amongst other more relevant ones that we are
sure are obvious as this one, centralization of the power of the NewCo into the
BOD should be avoided at all costs, as well as considering what geographical
locations members of the BOD should come from and why.

>
>
> There is not way to appoint any 15 or 30 or 100 people to the NEWCO
> Board of Directors that will not be subject to loud howls of protest
> from numerous quarters, as long as the NEWCO Board has great powers.

  Again agreed.  The BOD of the NewCo needs to be partially responsible to the
Stakeholders at large and the councils.

>
>
> The root problem is that we are putting too much power in the hands of
> the Interim and then the Permanent Board of Directors of the NEWCO
> that is proposed in the White Paper.

  Agreed, and why we had recommended that the BOD must be held accountable to the
the stakeholders primarily.

>
>
> So, the cure is to severely limit the powers of the Board so as to
> reduce the criticality of the membership choices of the Interim and
> Permanent Boards.
>
> That is why I strongly propose that we push down responsibility for
> policy and operations to the Councils, and restrict the Board to
> dealing only with facilitation and oversight of open and fair hearing
> processes in the councils, and oversight of the schemes for
> representation on the Councils.

  Agreed in part.  The BOD must also not be hamstrung either, so a balance must
be arrived at by setting  some initial guidelines and policies by which the BOD may
actions and responsibilities.  THis should be and Advisory group, we believe
lead by the IANA and some additional stakeholders at large charged with
coming up with some guiding policies for the BOD.

>
>
> Then we can find a good an useful way for the councils plus some small
> number of other groups to elect the permanent members of the NEWCO
> Board.

  No, the BOD should be elected by the Stakeholders at large.

>
>
> If we await arrival of the perfect representational scheme by which we
> can appoint a new czar-like NEWCO Board, which is chartered to
> dispense its supreme authority downward to the councils and to
> operations, we will only have succeeded in continuing the old IANA
> tradition of top down czar-like central control, in the face of an
> obvious requirement to aggregate power from the edges or the net (the
> bottom of the hierarchy).

  This seems backwards to us.  Rather the councils should be jointly determined
by both the BOD and the stakeholders.  Once formed and approved by Stakeholder vote,
than the BOD is directed to determine, oversee implementation, and manage any
and all policies an procedures that the councils determine by resolution and are
approved by the stakeholders at large by majority vote.

> The real power to control already resides
> at the edges of the net because of the design of the existing Internet
> Protocols.  This cannot be changed with any kind of political
> decision.

 Agreed.

>
>
> The secret to solving the whole puzzle is to understand that the NEWCO
> Board must be created with severely limited scope and responsibility,
> namely limited to enabling the formation and continued maintenance of
> open and fair bottom up power aggregation structures in the councils.

  Agreed, this indeed should be one of several of the responsibilities of the BOD
once formulated and the empowering policies are outlined and determined by
majority vote of the stakeholders.

>
>
> So, as noted several times of late, we already have 2/3rds of the
> required adequate councils in place (subject to NEWCO Board oversight
> to correct any inadequacies), leaving only one major council to be
> formed.

  Yes, those councils seem to be in majority agreement so far.  However who and
how councils members are selected and what is a "Member" has yet to be determined.

>
>
> NOTE: We already have a well functioning IETF, with its appointed
> Internet Architecture Board to serve as the PROTOCOLS COUNCIL, plus an
> operational RIPE/APNIC/ARIN confederation that is the nascent
> beginning of the ADDRESSING COUNCIL, which only leaves a gapping hole
> where the NAMES COUNCIL should be.

  This may be the structure of how the councils according to the nIANA should be
determined, but we strenuously disagree with them in as much as who are the
"Members" that should select the Councils members.

>
>
> So, lets go with what we have in hand, and only build what we need in
> the vacant spaces of the NEWCO council structure.

  Not good enough Stef.  (See above), or review or proposal's for this.

>
>
> This will shift our focus to doing what is critically important at
> this point in time, and for now leaving alone all that is already in
> place.

  Nothing is really in place YET Stef, only proposed to be put in place.

>
>
> Best...\Stef
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>    username=ifwp password=ifwp
>
> 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 or call 202-408-0008
>
> ___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