Re: [ifwp] Re: announcement from the Berkman Center

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 01:41:42PM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
> > The steering committee of the International Forum on the White Paper
> > has been asked by the Berkman Center to publish the following
> > message, sent earlier this week to the committee, to relevant public
> > lists.
>
>
>
> Jim's statement in an earlier message...
>
>     It is my understanding that the Berkman Center has been in close and
>     continuing contact with IANA and that IANA has not rejected the
>     proposal.  Please note that I am not speaking on behalf of the
>     Berkman Center.
>
> ...is a very convoluted way of saying that IANA has not agreed to the
> proposal.  Jim is generally a very direct writer.  When he is being
> convoluted you know there is a reason.

  Kent, please knock off the FUD.

>
>
> When you think about it, all we know officially from the steering
> committee is that the various meetings have been discussed, that votes
> have been taken, but that there is serious disagrement.  All the rest is
> a bit of seductive smoke blown by Jim, who, as we know, has been arguing
> vehemently for these meetings.

  Yes, and Jim is correct in many peoples and Stakeholders opinions.

>
>
> Outside the confines of this list the IANA proposal is quite popular --
> it recieved a standing ovation at the IETF plenary; within the
> larger context of the IFWP, the many participants who don't read this
> list, the IANA proposal is the de facto position; and even on this list
> the discussion most frequently turns about salient features of the IANA
> proposal -- the structure of the address council, etc.

  The IANA's proposal is a SHAM and is not baised on consensus and additionaly
does NOT meet with a consensus of the IFWP discussion or the conferences
consensus votesalready taken.  In addition the IANA's proposal does not meet the
standard plainly
stated in the White Paper for membership direct participation or accountability.

>
>
> So let's look at what Jim is proposing from IANA's perspective:
>
>     IANA is to be locked in a room with NSI's lawyers, with the
>     directive that they can't come out until a "compromise" set of
>     documents is produced.  A couple of *days* after that the documents
>     will be presented to a "ratification" meeting, attended by busloads
>     of NSI employees.  Of course, time is very short, and the meeting
>     will be overwhelmingly attended by people from the US, except those
>     with deep pockets, or perhaps NSI "sponsorship".

  While I agree with you  Kent that this proposed meeting at the Berkman
centeris ill advised, I disagree with you on the outcome or scenario you state
here.


>
>
> In my opinion, IANA would be crazy to agree to such a plan.

  We agree on this point.  This meeting that the Berkman Center is sponsoringis
very ill advised.  Although for different reasons than you state here.  We
believe that
without having this meeting open to andy and all stakeholders, large and small
being able to attend, it is in essence in violation of the White Papers
requirements
as a arriving on an agreement from the "Bottom-up" stakeholder participation and

totally does not include all of the current proposals that have been presented,
in
addition is NOT in keeping with the IFWP's open, fair and transparent doctrine.

>
>
> I note, however, that this is not a complaint with the Berkman Center --
> I highly respect the Berkman Center, and in fact I will propose Larry
> Lessig as a potential Director.

  We agree here completely.

>
>
> I note also that Laina, and several others, have posted highly
> constructive critiques of IANA's proposal.  I urge others to do the same
> -- while I certainly endorse the IANA draft, it is not a perfect
> document, and I will be posting my own comments to the IANA web site
> this weekend.

  The IANA draft is highly suspect to say the least.  We also are in the
processof preparing our critique of this latest iteration of the IANA's
proposal.  We will
also be posting a alternative as well.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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