Re: [ifwp] RE: Draft 3 or Genesis of new IANA or who is god?

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

Pete and all,

Pete Farmer wrote:

> Gordon Cook [mailto:cook@cookreport.com] wrote the following to com-priv
> on Monday, August 24, 1998 at 10:40 PM:
>
> >Jon talks about the open process he has run.  It is a process
> >where information is collected and taken into a smaller circle
> >of advisors who meet and discuss options and then make their
> >Pronouncements informing the rest of us what will happen.
>
> I think this is a bum rap.
>
> I give plenty of credit to IANA for:
> (1) Coming up with and publishing, on the Web
> (http://www.iana.org/news.html), an initial draft to the articles of
> incorporation and the by-laws, thus giving people something concrete to
> shoot at;

  But others have done this as well and also been willing to discuss and
compromisetheir Drafts on the IFWP list.  The IANA has not participated in any
fashion in this
regard.  I believe that this is the point that Gordon is trying to make.  ANd he
has
a good one.

> (2) Providing a Web-based mechanism for comments;
> (3) Publishing all such comments on the Web for all to see; and
> (4) Publishing subsequent drafts that do, in my opinion, address in good
> faith not only the formal comments received, but also issues discussed
> in various mailing lists.

  Well it don't appear from the tenor of the comments thus far on the IFWPlist
that the IANA has been paying very goo attention to comments on their
previous drafts judging from the mostly cosmetic changes made in the
Third draft.

>
>
> How would the process be made more open?

  This is an easy question to answer.  The IANA and Jon Postel could
participateOPENLY on the IFWP mailing list.

> I'm not sure what standard you
> are holding IANA against, Gordon.  The process is at least as open, if
> not more so, than the process by which the Green and White Papers were
> developed.

  This is true to a degree.

>
>
> I made comments to the second draft, via the Web, regarding ambiguities
> in the 2nd draft regarding the Board's powers, and I'm a self-proclaimed
> nobody on these issues.  I was pleased to see these comments addressed
> and the ambiguities rectified in the 3rd draft.

  Well we are happy that you were pleased, seriously.  But as I said
abovejudging from the comments made today of the IFWP mailing list, it appears
that you are in a tiny minority thus far.  THough Jon Postel claims that he
feels that there is already a "Consensus".  This is far from the truth and leads

people to question the creditability of his statements to say the least.

>
>
> I prefer discussions of the merits/weaknesses of the draft to these
> knee-jerk criticisms of the process, particularly since I consider such
> criticisms unfounded.

  You are of course instilled to feel that anything you wish to be
unfounded.This is not to say that it actually is however.

>
>
> >In general the process as executed by Jon is upside down.  We
> >have by laws but no articles of incorporation.
>
> Previous drafts from IANA did not include a draft of the Articles of
> Incorporation.  However, IANA did publish proposed Articles of
> Incorporation in conjunction with publication of the 3rd draft, so your
> criticism is inaccurate.  See http://www.iana.org/description.html,
> which points to http://www.iana.org/articles1.html.  Note: The Articles
> of Incorporation are, IMHO, highly uninteresting.  :-)

  Not only are the DRAFT PROPOSAL for the articles of incorporationuninteresting
they are far from complete as Gordon pointed out very clearly.
Read them and than consider the already consensus points that have been
determined
at the IFWP conferences that have already been held.  They doesn't even address
the important issues of Membership, and how the board and the councils are to
be elected.

>
>
> >Left out existing commercial registry (NSI), domain name
> >rights coalition, open orsc, trade mark interests, the
> >assoc for interactive media, cix, and isp/c. Leaving such
> >folk out is unconscionable in view of the fact that the
> >nine at large members are choosen to represent the commercial,
> >non technical, interests above.... IE the rest of the world
> >apart from the protocol, names, and numbers folk.
>
> I cannot agree that the groups you name are in any way
> "disenfranchised."  To the contrary.  The 9 at-large members are on the
> Board *in addition to* three representatives from each of four
> Supporting Organizations: the Address Supporting Organization, the
> Domain Name Supporting Organization, and the Protocol Supporting
> Organization.

  Yes, but their is not provision within the DRAFT PROPOSED articlesof
incorporation that provides what or whom these supporting organizations are
and whom or what other Supporting Organizations may join and what qualifications

must be met ot become or be considered a Supporting Organization.  Hence our
statement in our original response to the IANA's DRAFT PROPOSED Articles of
incorporation and I assume part of the reason for Gordons response as well.

>
>
> NSI, DNRC, trademark interests, etc. presumably will participate in the
> Domain Name Supporting Organization;

  Well what about individual Domain Name holders.  Do they get a fair, open,
andtransparent opportunity to participate on an equal basis?  If not why not.
If not does
this meet the IANA's own requirement of transparency and openness?  We say no.
Doe this also meet the White Papers requirement for a "Bottom-up" Stakeholder
participation in the decision process of the NewCo?  Again judging from the
third iteration of the IANA's Bylaws and the DRAFT PROPOSAL of the
IANA's Articles of incorporation, again we must say no, not even close.  And
hence
it appears from their own DRAFT's or Bylaws in the articles of incorporation
that
they are saying one thing and suggesting yet a completely opposite thing.  This
is
not consistent with what the White Paper requires, nor does it meet the IANA's
own Transparency statements.

> the 3 Board members from the DNSO
> will represent their views.  In addition, it is conceivable that
> at-large members will include others who are capable of representing the
> views of any of these groups.  According to the bylaws (Section 9.C.),
> the process for electing at-large Board members "shall include
> soliciting nominations from Internet users and industry participants
> organizations representing such."

 And this section is very ambiguous at best.  It is not clearly stated howand
under what terms or circumstances these elections should or could
be held, nor does it determine what is the qualification criterion for such
an organization to be considered for representation.  There is also NO
provision for individuals to represent themselves as Stakeholders.  So again
this section (Section 9.C.), FAILS to meet the IANA's own public statements
of transparency, fairness and openness as well as NOT meeting the White
Papers requirement of meeting the "Bottom-up" stakeholder interest.

>
>
> Frankly, I *do* have some discomfort with having current at-large Board
> memebers choose new at-large Board members.  Also, I think that the
> draft's language regarding Board election is written in tortured English
> and, consequently, is a bit unclear.

  Unclear is very understated.  It appears that it is unclear on purpose.  That
istroubling to say the least.

>
>
> Typically, Boards are elected by shareholders (in the case of
> for-profits) or members (in the case of most non-profits).  The
> difficulty here is defining who is a member, and how to keep any one
> constituency from "stacking the deck" by playing games with membership
> rules.

  Whom was established by consensus at the Reston Conference.Stakeholder =
Member= andy and all users, Domain name holders and all organizations
either for profit or non-profit commercial on non comercial.

>
>
> I don't have a solution to those problems.  The Draft's approach
> possibly is the "least worst alternative."  I will lend a keener ear to
> those proposing alternatives, as opposed to those demonizing Jon Postel.

  We have made a proposal.  If you cared to read it.  So did jay, Jim Dixon and
NSI.

>
>
> 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
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 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