don't start this thread, please

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

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Werner Staub wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 1998, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:

> Werner, could you please forward this message to ifwp-list? I'm having
> toruble with my outgoing mail server. August, you know ;-))

I think that Amadeu meant that this was to be sent to the steering
committee's closed list, ifwp-discuss@itu.int, but since it is here
... ;-)
 
> Hi SCers,
> 
> In the revious mail on next teleconf, I skipped all references to the
> so-called final meeting, step one (the Boston Tea, if you prefer).
> 
> It has been my strong position that we as SC cannot be involved at all
> in the preparation of such meeting. I understand that thee is some level
> of consenus in that point.

Amadeu is referring to the closed "editorial" meeting proposed by
Tamar Frankel in Singapore.  This was to be followed by an open
"ratification" meeting.

> Tamar had promised to send some written comnets on that meeting, but
> they have not reached my mailbox. In my view, this is a good sign.
>
> I insist that this is none of SC business. But as some among us keep
> asking what everybody thinks is the best possible way to get some
> closure on this process, and at least one among us (our dear Jay) has
> some "penchant" to interprete silences, agreements and disagreements
> aloing what he calls "party lines" in a way that appears a little bit
> unnatural, forced and even disturbing, I prefer to state (once again)
> *my* personal views on that issue, so anyone can check my positions
> within the SC against them. Perhaps it is useful that we all give our
> opinion, so we know where we stand. But indeed I will NOT engage in any
> discussion in the ifwp-discuss list regarding this mail or any other you
> could send on this topic. It is our of our goals.

I think that what Amadeu is trying to say is that "it is out of our
goals", that is, it is not the proper business of the steering 
committee as such to discuss or agree upon policy.  We have indeed
agreed upon this.  However, this is not true of individuals on the 
steering committee speaking in other forums, such as this one.

However, having said that it is not the business of the steering 
committee to discuss policy, Amadeu then goes on to discuss policy
at great length.  He concludes by asking no one to reply to him.

A tour de force, I think.

> I'm more than skeptical about the Boston Tea step. It is misplaced,
> 
> A) Probably useless: We know that 30 people in a room is not the best
> scenario to get anything significant achieved. What's more we know that
> many "snipers", "creamers" and what could be termed as "marginal players"
> would be invited. Self-asserting of representativeness seems to play a
> great role. This is fine for a proceess, but really dangerous for a unique
> meeting where WE CANNOT AFFORD A FAILURE. And as it is described we risk

This is an extremely odd argument: this meeting is so important that
we cannot hold it.  These decisions are so important that we cannot
reach them.

> having there many folks more interested in derailing the whole process,
> making noise or just wanting to make history than closing this process.
> Rather dangereous.
> 
> B) Still too unclear. No matter who sits there, I have not sseen any
> attempt to clarify who-counts-for what. Saying that we all have to
> compromise is too thin a statement. Imagine that the Catalan Reasearch
> Foundation, which I represent within this process, sits there. Does NSI
> have to comproimise with FCR as to the composition of the Names Council?
> And with CORE? And what happens if the ISPs represented have a different
> vision aboutthe Protocls council than IAB? And what happens if Joe Sims
> prefers California for incorporation, Tamar prefers Delaware, I prefer
> Switzerland and the rest don't care?. We all don't weight the same. And the
> relative weights are diverse according to different issues.
> 
> If you have ten people negotiating, this can be sooved easily. If we have
> 30, and most espcially, if this means having many marginal players, the
> issue is very hard to solve. And any likely comproimise, seriously
> compromised....

Amadeu appears to propose that we can solve the problem of dissent
by not inviting anyone he agrees with.  What we need is a group of
ten or so people, none of whom disagree too much with one another.
Right ...

> C) Misplaced. September 11-13 is way too late. I already pointed to some
> aspects that may not help to achieve a complete agreement. If it fails,
> even in not-that-central points, NO time would be left to recover form such
> failure. Even the task of working out the details would be problematic if
> we take that date as a start. The real work has to be done much before
> (now, just now).

Once again, the argument is that since there is some risk that the
closed meeting might not reach a conclusion, there should be no 
meeting at all.  This is a most peculiar argument.

> D) Potentially harmful. One possible, likely otucome of this meeting (if
> everything works well, what I doubt) is the production of a version of the
> nIANA Aoi and Bylaws. Or, most likely, guidelines for writing them. Berkman
> Center, Tamar or both are as legitimated as anybody else to produce such
> documents. Perhaps a little bit more than anyobdy else ;-) But we cannot
> run in all directions, producing competing documents for the same goal.
> This is the wrost possible scenario.

In other words, any result is OK, so long is it does not differ from
the current IANA bylaws, which in their current form feature

*	no membership
*	a self-selecting board
*	articles that can be changed at any time by the board, with
	  no particular majority required
*	bylaws that can be changed by 2/3 of the board

These articles permit the new corporation to be changed in all of
its regards by a board selected by some unknown group, a board which
is accountable to no one.

I have seen nothing come out of the IFWP discussions that is so
irresponsible as the IANA third draft.  If this small group of 30
people produced anything similar to the IANA draft, I for one would
denounce them.  Yet Amadeu's basic requirement is that the outcome
of the proposed closed meeting should not differ from the IANA draft;
his basic requirement is that the new corporation have no membership,
have a self-selecting board, and have articles changed by a casual
vote of whoever attends a board meeting.  The fact that each of the
IFWP meetings has rejected each of these either specifically or in
spirit is ignored.

> So what now? I insist in what I have said many times before. In principle,
> I don't care weho actually wirttes the documents, as I would judge them on
> its contents. If it is Jeff Williams, I'd welcome it. But we should not
> forget that what we are doing is not reinventing the wheel, but
> restructuring IANA (reingeneering it, as the techies prefer to say). IANA
> has the historical responsability to take a lead in this process. Their
> active involvement and explicit support to any solution is a precondition
> ofr my (much less important) support.

IANA is a technical body.  At no time have they shown themselves as
a group to have any particular skill in this direction that we are
now considering.  The DNS wars of the last two years are a clear 
demonstration that IANA should not lead: it should ask for advice
from the commercial, legal, and political communities and follow that
advice.  This was in fact one of the reasons for the IFWP process: 
to bring better judgement to bear on the process of forming the
new corporation.
 
> Let me try to be clearer: If IANA produces a version that clearly deviates
> form what is the industry cnsensus (as expressed within IFWP and
> elsewhere), I'll oppose such move. More importantly, I'll oppose any move
> that fails to provide what I deem most relevenat in this moment: clear
> structures for wideparticipation and accountability, and room for evolution
> and change of the system as we all might deem it appropriate. And a metyhod
> to get a strong board, able to move this difficult org forward.

Amadeu, you contradict yourself.  The IANA draft lacks accountability
in the most fundamental way.

> So I0d like that Tamar, and the Berkman Cneter is that is to be helpfull,
> work with Joe Sims on the docs. I hope that all them would contact the real
> key players. And anybody else they deem important, or even risky to be left
> out. Up to them. And I hope that really soon /no later than the end of this
> week) we have the final, or nearly final version of such docs. With IANA as
> a signatory. Then I'd judge whether I support or oppose them. And let the
> community decide whose opinion they trust better....

This is an abdication of the trust that so many people have
placed in the IFWP process.  Joe Sims, the author of the IANA articles
and bylaws, gets to write the IFWP articles and bylaws too.  A great
idea, one guaranteed to build "consensus".

> So in my view the Boston "first step" is at best the second one. One that
> comes when the dish is already cooked, and that could even bring some
> dangers. It is most a cosmethic meeting. If we have to play it, we'll do,
> but the further we go the most sceptical I am... Going though the three
> steps is too complicated, and evn risky. We need a lighter structure, I
> fell.
> 
> As for the names in the board, I hope that a list with the best
> "nominations" will be presented. And I guess that those with less
> "opposition" will be the first board. Who should be asked about them? Well,
> let me say that I think that I should be asked. Nor the overwhelming
  **********************************************
> majority of this SC. But, agsain, this is not up to me to decide.

The prescription we are being presented with is

*	after all these meetings, simply accept the IANA articles,
	  although they have worsened from draft to draft
*	ask Amadeu who should be on the Board

This beggars belief.

> This has benn my scenario from day one. Two months of IFWP have not changed
> my mind. IFWP has been very yseful, much more than I first thought, in
> order to bring many players to the discussion and provide some points of
> consensus (but not enough to build the new entity).
> 
> It is not that Icannot imagine a better scenario. Is that I cannot see any
> other alternative that could work, given the circumstances.
> 
> OK. Hear you tomorrow, probably. And don't start a thread on this mail,
> please.
> 
> Amadeu

And this is the rest of the prescription:

*	listen to Amadeu, but don't waste time replying

Like I said at the beginning, this was probably intended just for 
the steering committee, which is not supposed to discuss policy
questions.  

--
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