Re: [ifwp] Re: WIPO/IFWP conflicts

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

Milton and all,

mueller wrote:

> I think this is for the most part an honest response that sets out the lines of disagreement
> very clearly. Somewhat uncomfortably clearly, for those of us who thought we were making
> progress. Let me make a few observations:
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > That is your interpretation.  My interpretation is this:  as far as I am concerned,
> > and as far as *many* people are concerned, a solution that does not flow from the
> > current IANA is not acceptable. Therefore: THERE IS NO CONSENSUS THAT THE IFWP CAN GO DRAFT
> > DOCUMENTS.  This is a crystal clear reality.  The very fact that we are having this exchange
> > is proof that a consensus doesn't exist.  There is no such consensus, and claiming that there
> > is such a consensus is intellectually dishonest.
>
> By the same token, there is no consensus that IANA should lead the process, or that it has veto
> power over any results. The very fact that we are having this exchange is proof that a
> consensus doesn't exist. (sounds familiar?) This reasoning gets us nowhere.
>
> But let me say this: the IFWP is GOING TO DRAFT DOCUMENTS. Period.
>
> > Let me be a little more direct.  I have not seen a single iota of concern from you
> > about the operational stability of the Internet.  For you this is a theoretical
> > exercise in political economy, and you express your fine academic frustration that
> > things don't come out as you would like them to.  The continued functioning of the
> > Internet doesn't even register as an issue with you.
>
> Not true. I take a Dixonian line on this. IANA and the RIRs currently fulfill an important
> function but it is really the ISPs and the carriers who run the Internet at any given moment.
> We need the central coordinating functions, but the idea that the Internet as a whole is a
> fragile entity and that Jon Postel is the only thing that stands between it and chaos is not
> convincing to me.

  We agree with the notion that Jon Postel and the IANA lording over the Internet
is both a bad idea and has proven to not be satisfactory in the ever increasing demands
of the Stakeholders.  But one should also recognize that NSI has also played a
central role in this lack of managing the internet, especially in the sense or area
of the DNS.

>
>
> What does threaten operational stability, in my opinion, is the refusal of the existing IANA to
> go along with the IFWP consensus-building process.

   Not only does this unwillingness or lack of understanding provide a good background fora
unstable internet and its infrastructure, it is also completely against what Jon Postel
publicly stated when his letter of address was read at the Reston conference.  This is
especially troubling as to say that either he was not sinsear or a change in thinking
within the IANA has taken place.  And this is certainly not a stable or consistent
thought process for which the IANA should be engaged.

> This threatens to create a political rift
> that could easily be translated into a fragmented root or address space, and consequent
> confusion. IANA's goodwill, not any technical magic performed in Southern California, is the
> only thing of value it contributes.
>
> The most destabilizing issue is the future of the name space, which IANA has proven to be
> entirely inept at handling, precisely because it IS an issue in political economy.

  We agree that this is of the upmost of importance, however we would add that thedealing and
behind closed door handling of the IP Address allocation game is of
equal importance.  The RIR's have NOT been fair, open and transparent in the
allocation of IP Address space an ARIN in particular in terribly mismanaged.

>
>
> > But there are a large number of players who are indeed worried about the Internet.
> > They know that the good will that IANA has built up is a very valuable resource in
> > maintaining it, and they know that undermining that good will would be a singularly
> > stupid thing to do.
>
> We obviously agree on this. The question is--does Jon Postel and ISI personally own this
> goodwill, or are they willing to realize that it is time to move forward, that it is no longer
> their little personal empire?

  Good question.

>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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