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

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > and 'demonization,' I'm disappointed to find you charging him with
> > 'seductive smoke.'  I regarded it as straightforward reporting.
> 
> The "seductive smoke" comment was intended to refer to the whole
> case for a final meeting.  
> 
> Jim has wrapped himself in the flag of "open processes".  But look at
> what he is selling, Pete: a *closed* meeting, participants to be
> decided, with the only sure participant to be NSI [I quote from the
> Berkman announcement: "...major stakeholders (particularly *those who
> have generated draft founding documents* for the new entity)..."]. 

It is of course flattering to find myself cast as the chief salesman for 
the Berkman Center meeting, although it was not my idea.  Anyone
with a certain amount of patience will find me talking in these lists 
about a month ago about how the steering committee was going to have to
be quite ingenious to work out how to produce the compromise document.

As it turns out, we lacked the necessary ingenuity.  We got bogged down
in endless debates about policy.  It was the Berkman Center that pulled
the genie out of the bottle.
 
> Let's, for a moment, juxtapose the *claim* of openness with the *fact*
> of a closed meeting of about 30 people locked in a room.

It is the IFWP wrap-up conference which will be open.  The group locked
in at the Berkman center will be in a closed meeting.

No one has claimed anything different.

> Let's, for a moment, juxtapose the claim of openness with the actual
> selection process for these 30 people: Tamar Frankel will decide who
> attends -- Tamar Frankel, a newcomer to the scene who admits she
> doesn't know much about the Internet or the key issues.  When pressed
> on this, I understand she said she "would make a few phone calls" to
> help her make her selections.

Kent, this is stretching it.  You may understand that she said this,
but I actually spoke to her about it.  She said that she would be 
transferring responsibility to the Berkman Center.  While I do know
doubt that they will ask her for advice, they are the ones making the
decisions.

> That someone would call such a meeting a culmination of an "open
> process" really leaves me speechless, Pete...that people complain 
> about IANA's so-called "closed" process, and yet embrace this is just 
> mind boggling.

Your mind is easily boggled.  The IANA process has been closed from
beginning to end.  Their idea of an open process goes like this:

*	They have a law firm produce some articles and bylaws.  Who
	provides input into this process?  We don't know.  Who actually
	writes the articles and bylaws?  We don't know.  They just pop
	up on the Web one day.

*	Jon announces that they are up there.  Comments are invited.  
	These are handled by a software robot that just puts converts 
	them from email into HTML and puts them up on the Web.  Does anyone 
	ever reply to them?  Of course not.  Does anyone at IANA ever read 
	them?  That is an indelicate question.

Iterate.

This isn't an open process.  There are two parts to it: a completely
closed process that periodically produces revisions and a completely
mechanical process that puts email comments up on the Web, untouched
by human hands.

The IFWP process is utterly different.  There have been completely
open meetings about every two weeks that produce, in the usual 
shambolic Internet fashion, reams of words, arguments, sweat, some
tears, and pages and pages of consensus points.  Alongside these are
very active email lists where real live people say things and other
real live people insult them right back.  

Which of these is closer to the traditional Internet way?  Do I really
have to underline the fact that it is the IFWP?

> Jim says he knew that such a meeting might be a hard sell, so
> HE insisted that there be a "completely open" meeting thereafter to
> ratify or not ratify the result. 

>From my experience in attending the conferences in Reston, Brussels, 
Geneva, and Singapore, and from over 50 hours of conference calls, I 
could see why Tamar insisted on a small group under extreme time 
pressure hammering out a compromise document from the results of all
of these meetings.  What I actually proposed to her was a completely
open meeting organized under somewhat different lines than those that
we have settled on.  But we were are talking about now will do.

> We are assured that there will be electronic voting available.  Let's

You aren't assured of this.  It is just very likely.

> think a moment about this matter of electronic voting -- how are we
> going to be sure it is a fair vote? Oh never mind -- somehow that
> issue will be resolved, right?

I hope so.  The steering committee has tasked me with working out how
to do this.  
 
> The only possibly interesting result is if there is an overwhelming
> majority against the resulting documents.  That is, we would all 
> have to AGREE that it was bad.  Is that going to happen?  No -- 
> probably not.

We hope not.

> So the final "ratification meeting" is a pro forma feel good kind
> of thing, a sop to us, the rabble, to cover the closed nature of the
> preceeding meeting. 
> 
> That's why I said "seductive smoke".  

Is it?  

It is in fact not very different from what is normal in the Western
democracies.  In the end, we all line up and the polling booths and
make our choices.

The difference is that some of those making their choices will come
to Cambridge, presumably listen to a series of people arguing for
one side or the other, argue for a few hours, and THEN vote.

> The IANA has maintained an open process throughout.  Some people don't

Really?  Then tell me who wrote the articles?  Who wrote the bylaws?
Who decided that there would be no membership?  Who decided that the
Interim Board would select the final board?  Who made all of the
myriads of decisions that went into these documents?  When were they
made?  Why were they made?

We don't know.

You may or may not like the pages and pages of results from the 
IFWP conferences, the hours of tapes -- but it's all there.  This
is what an open process is like.

> The Berkman meeting, on the other hand, is a closed sudden death
> overtime final yea or nay proceeding.  I would not advise *anyone*
> with a stake to support such a meeting, much less IANA. 

Because they might lose?  Because they might find their proposals turned
down?
 
> > Ah, but what if the closed and open sessions produce a solid proposal,
> > in the eyes of Ira Magaziner?  It could happen.
> 
> First of all, the "open" sessions aren't going to produce anything,
> Pete.  Any carefully worked out compromise from the "closed" session
> is going to be so delicate that no tampering will be allowed. 
>
> Second, the only possible good result from the closed meeting would
> follow the philosophy of the IANA draft -- a transition organization
> that would continue the public process.  This is because no closed
> process with integrity could presume to bind too many decisions. 

One of the repeated themes in the regional meetings was that the
Board must be carefully constrained.  If the proposal put to the 
wrap-up meeting gives the Board too much freedom, I will vote against
it.  

Do I trust this small band of the great and good?  No.

It is not the Board that should continue the public process.  It is
a broad and diverse membership that reflects in some degree the 
complexity of the Internet.
 
> We already have a document that follows this philosophy. 

One that has no membership, a board without accountability, a board
that selects its successor -- what is it that you call this philosophy,
I wonder?

> > And what if Magaziner interprets IANA's refusal to participate as
> > indicating an unhealthy attitude toward inclusiveness in managing
> > Internet names and addresses?
> 
> On the other hand, I am quite sure that Magaziner is aware of the 
> dangers of turning this all over to a small closed group, the 
> composition of which is still unknown. 

Oh yes indeed.  It would be quite dangerous to turn it over to an
Interim Board selected by undefined processes behind closed doors,
even worse to turn it over to an interim board of that nature that
gets to select its own successor, still worse to turn it over to a 
board that can casually amend the articles and bylaws of the 
corporation.  That's exactly why the IANA third draft is unacceptable.
 
--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65