Re: [ifwp] Re: oh keep this thread going ;-)

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

Pete and all,

Pete Farmer wrote:

> Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com] wrote on Wednesday, August 26,
> 1998:
>
> >It may be worth noting that I in general support the
> >notion of some kind of membership organization directly electing the
> >at large directors, and I expect to continue to work towards that
> >end
>
> That was, indeed, worth saying.
>
> I think it outta be said in the draft by-laws as well.  Right now, the
> IANA (in its FAQ) appears to fear, rather than welcome, direct election.
> In
> http://www.iana.org/message-faqs.html, IANA is greatly concerned that
> direct election "would significantly increase the risk of preventing or
> impeding the New IANA from efficiently carrying out its critical
> administrative functions, and create a great risk that the entity could
> be either paralyzed by process or easily captured by narrow interests."
>
> Which seems to assume that many, if not most, "narrow interest" groups
> are lacking in a concern for Internet stability.  Which I don't buy.

  Well we are certianly in agreement with you here Pete.  I don't know if
mostare, but I would expect that most are in agreement with you here.  Stability

if the Net is dependent on all of the Stakeholders, whether the IANA wishes
to realize that fact or not.  With a Stakeholder/Membership vote on board
and council members and also Stakeholder/Membership vote on any and all
resolutions or policies which may be considered from time to time through the
use
of a secure Web Voting application you build and have a self governing
non-profit
corporation by definition and by participation of ALL
stakeholders=users=members.

>
>
> Recognizing the timetable and the real diffuculty in establishing a
> decent direct election method, I've proposed that the bylaws explicitly
> establish a timetable for designing a direct election process, rather
> than focus on creating a process today.

  Creating a direct election process is not that difficult.  We could have the
Webapplication up and available in about 35 days or less.

> (As you've said, time is
> short.)  I've provided the IANA comments list with detailed language for
> such a proposal.

  We did as well.  It is listed on the IANA's comments link.

>
>
> That would probably go a LONG way toward addressing the objections that
> many have raised to the 3rd draft.

  Yes, ad it would have been a natural for the IANA if they really believed
inand open, fair and transparent process to have provided for such a mechanism
as
a Web application.  They did not.

>
>
> Pete
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Peter J. Farmer                    mailto:pfarmer@strategies-u.com
> Strategies Unlimited               Voice: +1 650 941 3438
> 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205  Fax:   +1 650 941 5120
> Mountain View, CA 94040            WWW:   http://www.strategies-u.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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