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

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 03:57 PM 8/30/98 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>IANA has responsibility for these matters.  The scorecard looks pretty
>good on the technical side, lousy on dealing with the outside world.

Jim, I doubt seriously that you have anywhere near enough knowledge of the
details of IANA's history to make such a broad assertion.  I doubt it
because if you DID have that history, you would realize that your
assessment is patently incorrect.

>We cannot blame any failings in this representational role on government.
>We don't.  If things don't go our way, we accept that we have failed and
>try harder the next time.  We certainly do not set ourselves up in 
>opposition to government.

Jim, I'm glad to hear about the many strengths and accomplishments of your
organization.  Unfortunately, none of your statements pertain to the
discussion at hand.  IANA isn't asserting the negative role of the US
government in this case, I am.  IANA has not only not set itself up in
opposition to government, it has bent over backwards to work WITH government.

So just what is your point?

>No one is jumping and shouting about IANA's incompetence.  What we are 
>saying is "there's a problem, let's fix it."  

No, Jim, that is NOT what you've been saying.  Please review your statements.

Had you been making the less accusatory assertion of the need for change,
you would have found that I, for one, agree with you and have agreed to
that assessment for a long time.  In fact, "the need for change" was the
reason that the IAHC was formed, AT IANA'S INITIATIVE.

>Dave, I don't want to spend a long time on this.  I got involved in this
>process on your side.  The confrontational style drove me away.

You got involved relatively late.  There was an enormous amount of water
over the bridge by the time you came onto the scene.

It would also help if you looked back over your own contribution record and
considered the possibility that simplistic assertions of perfect solutions,
and implications of others' personal deficiencies, might have contributed
to the frustration that engendered that confrontational style.

>There are lots of us who had the same thing happen to them.

Yes, and you succumbed to the temptation to make personal attacks, just
like many of us.

>You had a choice.  You could have brought your opponents into the process,

We did.  Unfortunately, most "opponents" were more interested in attacking
the process than in contributing to it.  Again, go back and review the
record and note that those who pursued constructive efforts at contributing
substantive comments found a ready ear and that changes to the proposal
often resulted.  Those who instead chose to harp on process and never
responded with pragmatic efforts at producing content suggestions did not.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave CROCKER                                       Brandenburg Consulting
<mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>            <http://www.brandenburg.com>

Tel: +1(408)246 8253      Fax: +1 408 273 6464       Tel: +60(19)3299 445

675 Spruce Drive                                      P. O.  Box 296, UPM
Sunnyvale, CA 94086                               Serdang, Selangor 43400
United States                                                    Malaysia