Re: Choices Faced by ISOC, IFWP and the Internet- What is likely to Happen and a reply to Don Health

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

Gordon,

  Just curious, but how come you didn't cc this to the IFWP list?  In
  any case I am cc'ing this reply to the IFWP list.

Gordon Cook wrote:

> The Choices We Face
>
> We are now in the end game, things are becoming nasty.
>
> ISOC would like the closed-door process of new IANA corp by-law generation
> to continue.

  Yep.  This is very similar to what was done with the ARIN process as
well.Interesting that there is this very similar in that Jon is on the
ARIN board.

> It is trying as hard as it possibly can to control and
> channel the IFWP process so that it can step forward and hand Jon's bylaws
> to Becky Burr who may be expected to bless them and hand them on to Ira for
> ratification.  Becky and Jon get along just fine.  My sources report to me
> that given ISOC's anti NSI feelings and Becky's shared disdain for NSI,
> they consider this to be the most likely sellout of the Internet's
> commercial interests to be coming down the pike.  When considering his
> propensity to lash out when he would be better served by keeping quiet,let
> there be no mistaking Don's self interest.

  Well we all know very well Don Heaths past history and his true
  loyalties.Those loyalties are not the interests of the Internet
community or the Stakeholders of the net other than the IAB and the
IETF.

> Has anyone managed to find a
> copy of Don's contract on the ISOC web site?  Would be interesting to know
> for how many more years ISOC is locked into paying his salary.
>
> On the other hand there is some hope left in the IFWP process which
> explains why Heath and Abril abhore it so.

  This certainly seems to be the case doesn't it.

>
>
> The steering committee is not surprisingly fixated on the compromise
> meeting to be scheduled between now and the ratification meeting in mid
> september.  The compromise meeting is the key. It is the one that the
> ISOCians have not yet agreed to. It is expected to be small..... less than
> thirty people and will hopefully be run by professor Lessing.  Amadeau
> Abril and the ISOCians would like not more than ten.  (Lets see who they
> might be:  Iana, Isoc, Poc, pab, core, IAB, Arin, ripe, APnic and NSI.)  A
> stacked deck.  Left out would be open orsc, ispc, dnrc, euro ispc, CIX,
> APNIA (asian isp assoc - I may have the initials wrong), the CAIP (Canadian
> ISP assoc), ISPC association and AIM.

  Well this could certainly change if allot of us showed up.

>
>
> IF PROFESSORS FRANKEL and LESSING CAN identify the right stake holders and
> get them in a room with food and sleeping bags and not let them go until
> they do compromise, then we will likely see draft articles and by-laws that
> a ratification meeting can accept.  i wish him well and I hope someone is
> working with him getting him up to speed.  it will be critcical that he
> makes the right choice of which stake holders to invite.

  This isn't ever going to happen.  But it is and interesting and nice
  idea or thought.

>
>
> Abril's  fear of failure is, given such circumstances, unwarranted.  What
> he fears is getting into a situation where ISOC and IANA will have to
> compromise.  This is what these people have long been determined not to do.

  It certainly appears from both Don Heaths feeling publicly stated,
  and Abrilsstatements as well.  It also seems so from the latest
iteration of the IANA bylaws and preamble there unto.

>
>
> If the ISOCians don't torpedo the process we still have a chance of
> succeeding.  If however they deprive us of a compromise and ratification
> meeting, then NSI, Open Orsc, CIX, ISP/C, DNRC, AIM and anyone elese like
> minded better immediately plan for legal action and congressional
> intervention.

  Yes, and this is a good example of how these folks are showing their
  lack of interestin the all of the stakeholders.

>
>
> A Reply to Don Heath
>
> Don Heath takes umbrage in the most fascinating of ways.  Never mind that
> the destructive path down which he has lead ISOC is harming the ability of
> that organization to survive.  Don thinks he can win and win big time a
> role for ISOC that will make it tantamount to being the UN for the global
> internet - although presumably better funded than the UN.  Given the
> dubious financial health of ISOC, Heath has to wonder where his salary will
> be coming from a year or two from now so he is in the game for keeps to
> make ISOC the organization that will be the seat of the new IANA corp.  And
> to make ISOC the or ganization that the commercial players will  - like it
> or not have to deal with.

  This sure appears to be the case form the tenor of some of the
  discussion and someof the IANA's and Dons own statements.

>
>
> I have wondered how the ISOC trustees, who tend to be very clueful people
> who to a greater or lesser extent have been the builders of the internet,
> can sit there and allow Heath to get away with his brinksmanship.  If Heath
> is locked into a multi-year contract where the only way to terminate him is
> to be stuck with paying his full salary for several years into the future,
> we may sympathize with the trustees as they are faced with the choice of
> saving ISOC by replacing Heath but find that the cost of doing so would at
> the same time bankrupt ISOC.

  Don doesn't really care a bit about the ISOC when it come down to
  it.  He caresabout his own self interest only.  This has been his
real history and remains to be his attitude.

>
>
> I'd recommend that Don turn his attention to a superb paper found at
> http://www.isoc.org/inet98/proceedings/5a/5a_1.htm
>
> The "Governance" Debacle: How the Ideal of Internetworking Got Buried by
> Politics by Milton MUELLER <mueller@syr.edu>
>                        Abstract:  This paper criticizes the notion of
> "governance" as a departure from, and hostile to, the  coordination of
> inter-networking, which is what the Internet is all about. The governance
> debate
> is no longer about how to facilitate inter-networking. Instead, it is
> focused on restricting the ability to inter-network in order to protect or
> advance the socioeconomic interests of various stakeholders. The
> institutional problems caused by the growth of the Internet have become a
> pretext for advancing unrelated political agendas, from the regulation of
> speech to the policing of
>  trademark registrations. The paper shows that the history of radio
> broadcasting provides a clear example of how resource allocation problems
> can be exploited by governmental and private interests to impose a
> regulatory agenda upon a new medium. If this trend is to be avoided,
> Internet advocates and the Internet Society must rededicate themselves to a
> focused advocacy of inter-networking and discard initiatives, such as the
> gTLD-MoU, which stray from that agenda.
>
> Miller does a superb job of showing WHY ISOC and Heath's current course of
> action is a THREAT to the well being of the Internet.
>
> Heath however has far more important things on his mind than Mueller's paper.
>
> >Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:30:51 -0400
> >To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
> >From: Don Heath <heath@isoc.org>
> >Subject: Re: IP: ISOC Forces Announce: Open IFWP IANA Process Doomed to
> >  Fail
> >Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >When I started reading your post from Gordon Cook regarding the supposed
> >slip by Amadeu Abril i Abril, I feared the worst.  According to Gordon,
> >Amadeu had committed some horrible blunder  -  ie, that he had sent out
> >a self-damning email that unintentionally made him look like a fool.
> >
> >Then, I read the entire post and my fears disappeared.
> >
> >Incredible!  Not only did Amadeu do nothing of the sort, as characterized
> >by Cook; but, indeed, the comments of Cook and Dixon prove to be the
> >embarrassing comments -  for themselves.  Amadeu's comments are quite
> >reasoned, rational, and responsible.  There is nothing in them that is
> >at all like what Gordon Cook, or Jim Dixon try to convert/subvert them!
> >
> >Gordon and Jim have reinterpreted Amadeu's notes and distorted them
> >outrageously!
> >
> >Gordon's conspiratorial paranoia appears to have reached a new high
> >(low).
>
> How lovely.  Don "Trust Me" Heath has such faith in his reader's
> intelligences that rather than rebut the comments of Cook and Dixon,
> sentence by sentence he takes the extraordinary way out of merely saying we
> failed and then cleasnsing the remainder of the reply of our alleged
> failures.
>
> Maybe Don Heath is also a student of Russian History?  His tactic reminds
> me of the Democratic Centralism of the CPSU.  Stalin parts company from his
> enemies by removing as Don has done all traces of their remarks from the
> physical record.  And its is based on performance like this that ISOC
> trustees expect people to be motivated to join their organization?
> remarkable.
>
> >BTW  -  Unless, Amadeu came to the IETF this morning, I can tell you
> >that Gordon's statement that he is here, is false.  Amadeu has been
> >tirelessly flying around the world for weeks, trying to constructively
> >work toward international consensus through the IFWP process.  I do
> >not believe Amadeu ever was at the IETF in Chicago!
>
> Jim Dixon has said to heath: "According to Amadeu, he is at the IETF."  So
> whom to believe?  Heath or Dixon.......   Maybe Amadeau will step forward
> and say where he really is?  BTW I have received none of my information
> from jim Dixon. Any regardless of his location how is this footnote
> signifcant to the future history.

  Well what did you expect Heath to say.  He had no other choice but to
  try hisbest to put the best "Spin" on the blunder that Abril made.

>
>
> >I have taken the liberty of editing out all of Gordon's and Jim's
> >editorial comments on Amadeu's email  -  as I got them from your IP
> >post  -  to let Amadeu's words stand on their own.  I have left only
> >part of Gordon's misleading introduction.  I trust responsible
> >readers will make their own judgment.  The result is shown below.
> >
> >Don
> >
>  I am sure Don knew he damned well better edit them out.  leaving them in
> would be too embarrassing - for some people just might begin to look
> carefully at his assertions.

  We already have.  Shameful to say the least.

>
>
> [Big Snip]  readers have seen these twice before.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)           http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
> cook@cookreport.com                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
> subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
> ***************************************************************************
> -
> Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave.
> Eat sushi frequently.   inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.

 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