Re: [ifwp] RE: Better Safe, than Sorry! (was: It's been a pleasure)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay, Pete and all,

Jay Fenello wrote:

> At 03:20 PM 9/8/98 , Pete Farmer wrote:
> >I believe that there is a better approach than to create a complete set
> >of "consensus documents."
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> IMHO, writing a complete set of "consensus documents" is not
> the goal.  The goal is to give the "snipers", "creamers" and
> "marginal players" a say in the process that will establish
> the future governance of the Internet.
>
> >I suggest that those who now feel "left out" of the process come up with
> >a FINITE (3 to 5) number of key concerns/amendments to IANA's current
> >draft.
>
> Yes, and many of us have given comments, both public and
> private, to both Jon Postel and his attorney, and we have
> seen very little effect.  So little, in fact, that most of
> us are not willing to waste our time further.

  Jay is exactly correct here.  And this has always been one of the IANA'smajor
flaws and/or problems.  The IANA is NOT respective enough or
responsive enough to the needs and demands of the Internet marketplace.
They seem to wish to continue this lack of responsiveness and turn a blind eye
to the needs and demands or the internet stakeholders

>
>
> Our strongest play, again IMHO, is to rally around the IFWP
> consensus points, as they are truly reflective of a broad,
> diverse constituency of Internet stakeholders.

  This is exactly correct.  But it will be necessary for a practical
andsubstantive set of Bylaws in formal form along with Articles of
Incorporation in a formal format to be created to be taken seriously.

>
>
> It is far too easy for (twenty-)five people meeting in a room
> in Boston, or an ISP/C hosted list, or a name.space rally in
> New York to be dismissed as insignificant.
>
> It is much harder, however, to dismiss all of these groups
> presenting a plan based on the IFWP results.  If we have a
> "consensus document" and a slate for the interim Board of
> Directors, then Ira is committed to reject the IANA plan
> until it is reconciled with ours.

  THis is what we have been suggesting for some months now.  And it will
benecessary for this to be done verified by  VOTE of all of these groups in a
manner
that is verifiable.  That can only be achieved with the use of a Web VOTING
application.  This application should be made available at a minimun on the IFWP

web site.

>
>
> Jay.
>
> >I have previously expressed my concern over the following, and have
> >proposed amendments on IANA's comment list (comments@iana.org):
> >
> >1) The document does not spell out how the at-large members of the
> >Interim Board will be chosen.
> >
> >2) The document does not establish a timetable to enact an open election
> >process for at-large Board members.
> >
> >3) The "sunshine" provisions of Article IV need improvement; I have
> >suggested that the language from Article 6 of the NSI draft replace that
> >of the IANA draft.
> >
> >Others may have different views, or different items to add to this list.
> >
> >If reasonable people can propose well-reasoned changes to the IANA
> >proposal, then we can hope that reasonable people in the Administration
> >will listen.
> >
> >We should help these reasonable people out by focusing on KEY concerns,
> >and not getting bogged down in minutia.
> >
> >Pete
> >______________________________________________________________________
> >Peter J. Farmer                    mailto:pfarmer@strategies-u.com
> >Strategies Unlimited               Voice: +1 650 941 3438
> >201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205  Fax:   +1 650 941 5120
> >Mountain View, CA 94040            WWW:   http://www.strategies-u.com
> >
>
> __________________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com