Mark,
My opinion is that the IFWP process has finished. It was born to figure out
points of consensus in the Internet Community, which would have to be
incorporated in the bylaws, which has been done by IANA.
Nevertheless, there are strong economical interests (NSi and others) who
see that if IANA is in charge, they will have little chance of keeping
their revenue stream (NSi) or getting their own TLD (Fenello, Ambler,
etc...). So they are trying to organise a drafting meeting in Harvard in
which new IANA's bylaws will have to be discussed with NSi and others
(again Ambler, Fenello and cia.). These people believe that if they are
able to incorporate IANA themselves, they will be able to make it as
directors of IANA (death of the internet....). Therefore they cannot let
IANA be the leader of the process.
All these people have a lot of strength in the IFWP, mostly because very
few mainstream organisations are involved, so they have agreed on this
meeting and on a second "ratification meeting" in Boston right after (13th,
14th september), in which, I suppose, they will try to incorporate.
They just don't realise that what empowers the IANA and the new IANA is the
trust of the root server operators, of the IETF, the IAB, etc.... Nobody
can create a corporation and decide that they are the new IANA, only IANA
can do that.. but there are some who do not want to believe it... they fill
figure it out on time, but meanwhile they sure make a lot of noise...
What the endorsment of IANA does is to save time.
Javier
At 23:53 26/08/98 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
>> At 09:57 AM 8/25/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >I would like to send a PAB endorsement of the IANA drafts to IANA,
>> >and to this end I would like to see some discussion. Are there any
>> >serious objections to me doing so?
>>
>
>It might be appropriate to ask PAB and POC members who participated in
>the IFWP process whether the IFWP will be presenting the output of its
>process for public endorsement and integration into the IANA drafts in
>the next few days, whether IFWP will be presenting a separate draft of
>something or whether the IFWP was checkmated by its own popularity and
>produces nothing.
>
>Although it seems likely that many people would prefer the latter course
>for simplicity'sake, it could appear unwise of PAB to reject the
>inclusion process IFWP represented, at least partially, particularly if
>the IFWP is able to demonstrate its derivation from the different
>coloured government papers. A naive reading of the IANA draft does not
>seem to indicate inclusion of the various points raised by IFWP,
>doubtless my spectacles.
>
>Mark Measday
>
>______________________________________________
>
>UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167/mobile 0044.370.947.420
>France tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92/0033.450.20.94.93
>Email: measday@josmarian.ch/measday@ibm.net
>Web: http://www.josmarian.ch
>______________________________________________
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:34 PST