Mark,
I think that the IFWP process has been very positive. In each meeting it
has brough people together who had never sat together before (with people
from their own region) to debate about the Internet. Many of this people
will now stick together for other issues.
It has also included a number of people (several of which had their trips
paid by NSi) who think that they can get a private TLD out of this process,
or that they can have a power trip by becoming directors of the New IANA if
they can incorporate it themselves. Even if the lastest are the less...
they sure make a lot of noise.. and at this point have a strong power in
the IFWP SC, as mainstream organisations have lost interest.
Tamar spoke at Geneva to avoid having issues being voted in the plenary, so
that consensus reached in small break-out session would remain that...
consensus reached in small break-out sessions... In spite of that, the
third iteration of the IANA bylaws has included as much of this consensus
as has been possible... and this includes ideas from NSi and all the other
"groups".
IANA (the regulator body of the Internet Community) has nothing to
negotiate with NSi (an entity that needs to be regulated). The White Paper
clearly says that the USG will negotiate with NSi. IANA should receive a
USG/NSi deal that does not tie its hands...
There might be a few points to be pulished in the third iterations... but I
assure you that they reflect consensus very well, something that cannot be
said of NSi's PR bylaws.
I will propose soon a support note that points some things that might be
included in the bylaws, in spite of the fact that I feel very confortable
with the current version.
Javier
At 11:32 29/08/98 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
>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