Re: [ifwp] Re: infinite delays and questionable precedents

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 12:28 PM 9/1/98 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is commonplace on this list to trivialize the 
>"IETF/IAB/IAHC/POC/PAB/ISOC/IANA/MoU/WIPO/INTA/CORE/EC/ITU/etc" position as a mere 
>pinpoint of opposition to the "all-inclusive" IFWP.  But in fact those 
>organizations represent a huge range of inputs -- far larger than the IFWP 
>could ever claim.


Given that the organizations listed above comprise 
a significant subset of all who participated in the 
IFWP process, I find your logic wanting, at best.  

And besides, I am not aware of anyone trivializing 
those participants.  In fact, the only complaint 
I've heard is that some of those groups have so 
far refused to support a compromise meeting!

This is unfortunate.  Over the last couple of days, 
I have had the opportunity to talk with two different 
branches of the U.S. Government.  I assure you, if the 
technical community doesn't get their act together, 
the U.S. and other Governments *will* intervene.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com

=====================================================================
 ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs.  October 26-28, 1998, Atlanta, GA.
 Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
 brightest. http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration.
 ====================================================================