Re: [ifwp] Re: Draft 3 or Genesis of new IANA or who is god?

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

Eric and all,

Eric Weisberg wrote:

> Pete Farmer wrote:
> >
> > Eric Weisberg [mailto:weisberg@texoma.net] wrote on Thursday, August 27,
> > 1998 at 6:37 PM:
> >
> > Jim Dixon wrote,
> > >> ...To my mind, any group of say 100+ people with a proven
> > >> serious interest in these questions (those who replied to the NOI
> > >> or Green Paper?  those who attended the IFWP conferences?) is
> > >> preferable to a tiny clique selected by ye olde meeting behind
> > >> closed doors.
> >
> > >Pete.  What is the answer?  Which process will have the most legitimacy
> > >and result in a generally accepted solution?
> >
> > Flattered you should ask.  :-)
> >
> > The real judge of this, of course, is the US Goverment (Magaziner)...
>
> I appreciate your points, and am not disputing your conclusions.
> However, my question is different.  Please reflect upon the following
> concern.
>
> Internet Texoma is not in the DNS debate.  We will be happy with
> whatever resolution those people come up with.  All we want is peace.

  We agree.  All we want is Peace and a equal opportunity to compete inand open
and fair manner.  What the IANA has proposed does not
represent that type of structure.  THey seek to capture the central resources
of the internet along with the RIR's.  And we all already know ARIN's abusive
practices.

>
>
> And, we want peace on the other governance issues, as well.  We saw what
> happened with the IAHC (without regard for who was right or wrong), and
> do not want that kind of fight ragining after some plan is declared the
> "winner."  In other words, are the contestants fighting for "consensus"
> or for victory?  And, who is going to pay the price?

  We should be fighting for consensus.  And as we have said time and time
againthe only way "WE", meaning the Internet community and all of its
Stakeholders
are ever going to know for a fact that we have a consensus is to have a VOTE
on every section or part of any proposal, and Ellen Rony has suggested as well.
The only real way to accomplish this is to have a Voting application up and
running
where ALL of the stakeholders can openly and fairly VOTE on any and all parts of

a specific proposal or proposals and than come up with a final set of Bylaws
and articles of incorporation.  This is just plain logical if REAL consensus is
desired by ALL interested parties.

>
>
> We committed to, participated in and were willing to live by the results
> of the IFWP process with the belief that it would result in a globally
> respected resolution.  We also believed that process would (if followed)
> result in the best model of governance, from our point of view.  We are
> now concerned that neither promise will be kept.

  From what Jim Dixon and Tamar Frankel have been telling us with respect tothe
proposed CLOSED Berkman meeting, it appears that the initiative of fair,
OPEN, an Transparent IFWP process is not being compromised or about to be.
This is a terrible shame and should be resisted in any way possible.  I know
that
we are preparing to do so with legal injunction if necessary.  I would like for
you
Eric to join with us in fighting this proposed Berkman meeting to insure that
the
HUGE majority of smaller and individual Stakeholders don't get sold a bill of
goods that we really don't want in deference to the large stakeholders ar our
expense.  What do you say?

>
>
> I was really asking your thoughts on the issue of "What process will
> have the most legitimacy and result in the most generally accepted
> solution?"  What do your think we/THEY should do to accomplish THAT
> objective?

  We must and indeed owe it to ourselves and every other individual andsmall
commercial and non-commercial Stakeholder alike to fight this CLOSED
DOOR meeting being considered by the IFWP SC and the Berkman folks.

  I have been in contact with our legal folks in the Boston area to this end
and will be in constant contact with them in preparing a court injunction to
head off this unfair and possibly illegal meeting at the Berkman Center.

>
>
> Eric
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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