Re: CIX's Position in the IFWP Steering Committee detailed below

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@UNETY.NET>]

Dave,

Thanks for the summary. To clarify, my main agenda
is not IPv6 or IPv8. My main agenda is to help create
more resources and to allow those resources to find
their way into people's hands around the world with
as low a distribution cost as possible to help allow
more people to use the Internet without funding a
bunch of lounge lizards to fly around the world every
time they feel like it funded by taxes they collect from
the disadvantaged people that they have under their
thumbs....or IN-ADDR.ARPA.

I was hopeful that the IETF (without the ISOC) would
continue to be a good group to help encourage the
low-cost distribution of resources. It now appears that
the new IANA Inc. may be a better facilitator for that
mission because the IETF has been captured by the
ISOC "suits". Even though the IFWP people mean well,
they have now attracted the IAHC CORE crowd that
is mainly looking to cash in on some quick buck
schemes. I am hopeful that Jon Postel saw enough
of the IAHC result to know better than to go near the
IFWP this time around. He has also been able to
witness the "members only" approach used in ARIN
and which the IFWP people seem to think provides
a democracy. I am confident that Jon Postel and the
various old-school IETF people will be able to push
forward to move the IANA Inc. to a point where it
is legally disjoint from the ISOC and the IETF. When
that occurs, we might have a chance to all work
to renew the faith and to bring more resources to
people around the world at a low cost.

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Paulsen <dave@reststop.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv@lists.psi.com>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: CIX's Position in the IFWP Steering Committee detailed below


>On 30 Aug 98,, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
>> 2.  Is Jim Flemming correct that this is not worth getting excited about?
>>
>Well, in some ways. His agenda, of course, is IPvX. Which, I also believe,
is
>more important in the grand scheme of things than the hoopla over TLDs.
>Some of his concerns, however, are equally valid in both debates.
>
>Other TLDs are being successfully used--on a technical level. And, on a
>technical level, the IP address space problem could be migrated more
>smoothly into TNG if some of the "big boys" (and I use this term loosely
here
>(no, it's _mine_, you can't _make_ me give it back)) would aggregate/return
>more of the current address space.
>
>Part of the problem in both debates is the concern over whose "deserving"
>pockets the profits are going into, and especially on the in-addr.arpa
side,
>that profiteering not take place on the _necessary_ resource. I mean, a TLD
>is just a string of characters, and with GUIs, no longer of much real use
>outside of marketing. For Internet based communications to occur at all,
>though, you _need_ an affordable, routable, IP address.
>
>I think for efficient, ubiquitous use of Internet technologies, both TLDs
and
>IPvX need to be based on open protocol standards, and centrally managed
>(even with a regional second tier for day to day operations) to prevent
>collisions and non-reachable sites. As far as I'm aware, the only way to
have
>this, at least on this particular planet, is either with a "benign"
government
>agency, or an international non-profit organization, ideally run by geeks.
>
>And I make that last little comment because _what_ people do on the
>Internet is a social phenomena and the capitalists, politicians, and
marketers
>can do what they will to try to sleaze their way into the mindset of the
user;
>that people _can_ do what they will on the Internet is solidly in the
domain of
>the engineer and meddling merely decreases efficiency.
>
>
>_dave_(seemingly obligatory and definitely resource wasting .sig)
>