Re: [ifwp] Re: "snipers", "creamers" and "marginal players"

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

Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Let's see -- I've been building the Internet since 1974, I'm an attorney
> who has been concerned with computer and network law since the late 1970s,
> I've created and edited widely used Internet Standards, I've been
> co-chairman of the IETF working group on procedures and policies, I wrote
> the largest (and in the view of some, the most comprehensive) response to
> the NTIA Green Paper, I've founded two Internet based startups [one
> sucess, one failure] and been the first employee of a third sucessful
> Internet startup, I am employed as a designer for one of the largest
> providers of Internet equipment, my wife owns an Internet based startup
> company, I use the Internet every day, and I've been an active partipant
> in the IFWP meetings and discussons.

  Like Karl, I too have had a long history in the building of the
internet since theearly 70's.  I am a partner in a fairly Internet
software development firm, our firm has been instrumental in funding
startups companies to the tune of over $40m currently.  I have been
involved in the IETF process on several security protocols (SSL and
TLS).  I have either jointly or individually over 16 patens dealing
with internet related API's or transport protocols.  We have a partial
ownership of the DDS paten for use of our "Internet protocol interface
Facility"

sometimes referred as MLPI that integrates transport protocols with
existing security protocols as well as TCP/IP and UUCP.  I have been
one of the primary developers of over 7 Java API's, and one Java's
original developers.  I have been in the software industry,
specializing in communication software for over 20 years.

>
>
> So, am I a "sniper" or a "creamer" or a "marginal player", and hence
> deserve no say whatsoever in the future management of the internet?

I would ask the same question as Karl does here.  Which are we?
Sniperor Creamer.  Or as some in the IANA, ISOC, IAB, and IETF would
have others believe a "Marginal player".  So, I would ask yet again, do
we not deserve an equal say in the future management of the internet
and any of these organizations?  In fact, I would venture to say that
we (INEG. INC.) have more employees/part owners, as we are employee
owned, than the ISOC has members.

>
>
> Apparently many self-proclaimed "stakeholders" think so as they scramble
> to create a color of legitimacy for proposals that will exclude people
> like me.

  Karl makes yet another excellent point here.  Is that these
  organizationsthat seek to exclude individuals or other commercial
organizations have more legitimacy than I or Karl has?

>
>
> I take direct personal offense by these attempts to keep myself and other
> interested individuals from having any vote in the formation of "the
> final" documents.

  We again agree with Karl here as well, as I am sure many others that
haveparticipated the best way they could in the IFWP process.  We take
great offense of these organizations attempting from their own
statements in the last week to purposefully exclude individuals and
equal voice in the decision making process which they are seeking to
exclude individuals like Karl and I from.  We also find this not in
keeping with the spirit of the NTIA's White Paper.

>
>
> And I take direct personal offense at these proposals which are so
> structured as to effectively prevent "the small guy", the individual, the
> citizen, from being able to participate in Internet governance.

  Yet again I must agree with Karl here completely.  It is these
  verykind of proposals that threaten the stability of the internet.

>
>
> This whole movement to rank "stakeholders" by some sort of size leads to
> oligarchy, not democracy.

  Karl is certainly correct here.  There must be a balanced approach.
Severalhave been offered such as the one proposal that I have offered
as well as

Jay Fenello's.

>
>
> It is wrong when it is taken to the extreme position of enfranchising only
> the "largest" or giving them such a position of dominance as to make the
> role of other interests nothing more than a theory or fantasy.

  I again agree with Karls assertion here.

>
>
> The IFWP process was working, albeit slowly -- it takes a long time to
> build the necessary trust and understand of one another's point-of-view.
>
> Yet it now appears, to me at least, that that process is in grave danger
> of being derailed.
>
> I would appreciate the opportunity to continue to resolve the issues
> before us.  I do believe that there are many of us, including the person,
> who I have come to respect and who posted the message to which I am
> replying, who, despite our differences, can reach common ground.

  I and We (INEG. INC.) also wish to continue to resolve theissues
  before us as well.

>
>
>                 --karl--
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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