Re: [ifwp] Re: Truce

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

Milton and all,

mueller wrote:

> This is important:
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > If the three existing RIRs are considered impregnable and permanent, then
> > there is no way that the net could be managed to accomodate the new
> > realities.
>
> ditto for the existing TLD registries

  Agreed, and it is this very concern as to what has motivated a ground swellof
individuals to question the status quo, which has lead us to where we are now.

>
>
> > The net *is* evolving very rapidly.  It is a dangerous idea to bind
> > net coordination/management to the existing instrumentalities of
> > coordination/management, in particular NSI and the RIRs, without giving a
> > means of restructuring that arrangement as the net evolves.
>
> Well said. This is the point I have been trying to make repeatedly on the lists
> and in Geneva. My critiques of the attempts to ccTLDs and RIRs to reify their
> own current roles is often interpreted by their advocates as hostility to them
> as institutions, and I know that I have made several enemies as a result. But
> the position I espouse has little to do with my personal feelings about the
> organizations or the personalities behind them. It is motivated by an attempt
> to make sure that the structure of the new organization makes room for the kind
> of flexibility it needs in the future.

  ANd this flexibility is badly needed it needs to be inclusive of all the
thestakeholders interests in such a way that new ideas and technologies are not
faced with
terrible barriers to entry which are currently in place in some areas set forth by
the very organizations which form most of the foundation of the Internet we have
today.  To oppose them will make you an enemy in their camps as they will feel
threatened, however they need not feel so.

>
>
> As a scholar who specializes in the study of the evolution of communication
> institutions, there are too many sad examples of dysfunctional arrangements
> that were locked into place because the people involved in creating the
> institutions thought they were carving up a pie and distributing pieces of it
> to existing entrenched interests, as opposed to creating a framework that could
> provide an open and durable basis for progress going forward.

  Exactly correct Milton, and it is this very durable basis that must be much
moreinclusive in order for forward progress to occur.  We have ALWAYS sought to
move the future of the internet in this direction.

>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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____________________________________________

 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