Javier,
Agree absolutely with your analysis, but don't agree with the
disenfranchisement of all the people the IFWP brought on board. It's poor
diplomacy to be rude to all the people who turned up in Singapore, Buenos Aires
and Geneva, many of whom are international stakeholders or who represent
international stakeholders of considerable weight in the long term.
If there is a process which is perceived to be fair, open and honest in which
IANA participates it will have costs to IANA in terms of accommodating itself
to a new, broader constituency. If they can't agree to agree it puts all the
people who built the original structure in this area at risk and you end up
with a group of disaffected stakeholders.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't endorse IANA's positive steps, but that you
should endorse them to negotiate the necessary reasoned solution within the
original timeline with the interested parties and cover the exclusionary nature
of sticking within the original managerial ISOC/IETF/IAB/RIR orbit by inviting
a representative delegate of the opposite view. You could probably get Vladimir
Petrovsky or some such to come as an observer/arbitrator/representative,
insulating you against the currently US and OECD-centric structure evolving,
and demonstrating ISOC's global commitment to its education and development
mandate, of which presumably its activities in this area is a subset. Good for
business too, in the long run. I would have thought that the ISOC trustees
would have had a view. A purely personal perception and hypothesis.
Best regards,
Mark
Javier SOLA wrote:
> 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's 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
> >______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
--______________________________________________
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