[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: announcement from the Berkman Center
Jim and all,
Jim Dixon wrote:
> 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.
Well this conclusion is extremely optimistic at best Jim.
> > 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.
And this closed meeting is not as We have said over and over again not
inkeeping with the IFWP process, in fact it is similar and slanted more in the
vain of the what the IANA normally does. Much similar in how the ARIN
> 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
Ahhhhh, so the plot thickens, eh Jim? This only stands out as even more
problematicas to the fairness, openness and especially Transparency of what the
process is supposed to be about.
> > 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.
> 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.
Agreed. This is indeed NOT an open process that the IANA has engaged inand
promised from a reading that Jon Postel himself had read by Tamar at the
Reston conference. This show us that not only is the IANA NOT interested in
an open process, but it also serves to show that Jon Postel, is indeed not
to be trusted. He has made a promise and than not followed through on that
That is frankly apauling to us!!!
> 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?
No you don't, until now. Now the IFWP, in the name of Tamar Frankel,
hasdecided to bow to the underhanded methods that the IANA uses to determine
what and how things should conclude. This also is apauling to us!!!
> > 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
Most likely this is why, yes. But this is purely speculative.
> > > 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
> 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.
Well this is exactly the same reason and logic why we are against the CLOSED
meetingby the Berkman Center, Jim.
> > 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?
Well we wonder too. BUt it is not too hard to extrapolate what that
philosophyis or might be.
> > > 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.
Yes and this type of incestual self generation of the "Inner circle"is very
much like if not exactly like what the ARIN board is currently structured
like and has demonstrated it will do in its already casual amendments of its
bylaws and articles. BUt this is to be expected for the IANA to propose
in that Jon Postel sits on the ARIN board presently.
> 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
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email email@example.com.
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.