Re: [ifwp] Re: Postel's view of Internet users

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 09:10 AM 8/5/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >3.  There was a nearly universal lack of enthusiasm with the concept
>> >of an Industry/User Supporting Organization in the earlier draft.  The
>> >principal objections were that (1) it was hard to see how such an
>> 
>> Actually, Jon's statement here was accurate, albeit 
>> incomplete. What he failed to include was a statement that 
>> there was near universal lack of enthusiasm for his closed 
>> membership arrangements and then failed to rewrite the ByLaws 
>> to provide for the kind of open membership industry organization 
>> one would expect to see.
>
>1) I think most reasonable people do agree that creating a membership 
>organization and holding elections is a non-trivial task, and, given the 
>strength of the various controversies and conflicts surrounding the issue, 
>one that certainly will not be complete by September 30.
>
>2) The draft explicitly addressed the issue of making the new
>organization a membership organization by chartering the interim board
>with the task of doing so.  Perhaps you could be constructive, and
>suggest language strengthening those provisions?


Hi Kent,

After meeting Jon Postel and his attorney, Joe Sims,
I was relatively comfortable with them incorporating
the consensus points from the IFWP into their By-laws,
and then letting the rest of the community make 
changes to that base document.

I no longer support that approach!

The current iteration of the IANA By-laws are completely
counter to many of the consensus points that came out of
Reston and Geneva.  Yesterday, I pointed out that the new
By-laws have ignored consensus on membership.  Today, Andy
pointed out that the new By-laws have ignored industry 
organizations.

And now you have, thankfully, pointed out that the new
By-laws have ignored consensus on an "interim board."
In fact, there is not a single reference in the new By-laws
to an interim board, only an initial board.

In many ways, this second iteration is *worse* than the 
first.  Karl Aurbach has pointed out that these By-laws 
appear to be designed to entrench the existing power 
structure in an organization that is unresponsive to the 
Internet stakeholders, without any guarantees that
it ever will be.

Unless these games end, I will most likely support another
set of By-laws.  This means that the USG will have at least
two sets of By-laws to choose from, which means that they 
will be forced to intervene, as Ira indicated in Geneva.

It is not my desire, but it is my fall back position.
Let's stop these games, and work towards a solution that
works for everyone.


Regards,

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