Michael,
Please note that I am responding ONLY to the PAB list. I would like this
track to stay in here. The interesting thing of closed lists is that I can
express my opinions to the people in the list without having to worry about
anybody else reading them. The style of my writing if for this list and for
no other, in spite of your opinion of where it belongs.
>>This is precisely my opinion,
>
>I don't doubt that. As a convinced democrat I have no objective whatsoever
>to take it from you. However what I really can't stand is the fact that you
>throw all proponents of a final meeting into the same pot. You forgo all
>differentiations - and there are truly other shades than black and white -
>and impute all the intention of wanting to obtain personal advantages. I
>consider this completely unacceptable.
>
>>which I have posted to a closed list (PAB),
>
>I am well aware of the fact that the PAB is a closed list. You can rest
>assured that I hesitated a long time before forwarding your posting to the
>IFWP-SC. Nevertheless I think that the SC has a right to know what
>"precisely your opinion" is, particularly since you publicise assumptions
>which, in my opinion, almost make fair discussion impossible.
I have expressed my opinion in much stronger terms to the SC.
>Further, the SC-list is also a closed one and the forwarded message has
>been read by at maximum 50 people (some of whom are on the PAB list anyhow).
49 too many.
>
>>and you have, breaking our trust, copied to the IFWP steering
>>Committee.
>
>Seriously Javier: I regard it to be decidedly worse to speak with duplicity
>than to forward a mail that, as you say, accurately reflects your opinion.
>If the latter is the case, then stick to it. Otherwise I would have to
>believe that you deliberately represent two deviating opinions in the PAB
>and in the IFWP-SC.
Exactly the same one. Have I not oposed having a final meeting ? Have I
not openly tried to stop Jim from including in the agenda items regarding
the incorporation of the New IANA in the IFWP meetings... have I not spoken
of all this ?
Have I not said that a negotiation between IANA and NSi can only benefit
NSi... and never the Internet Community. I think that I am pretty vocal in
the IFWP SC list. But what I write for that list is kept there...
>>I do respond for my opinions, though, independently of where they have
>>been posted. I feel free to share them with the group of which I am an
>>elected official (PAB) in our private list... or should I lie to them?
>
>Under no circumstances! However I would like to request the same degree of
>sincerity in the IFWP-SC. Additionally I would prefer you to extend your
>view for the reasons some of us represent different opinions than you do.
>Not everyone not of your opinion has evil intentions.
Michael, there are a number of associations that have been incorporated
with the only purpose of joining the IFWP, whose members are funded by NSi
to go to meetings (admitted by themselves) and who always vote for whatever
NSi would have voted itself.... they don't have evil intentions, they just
work for whoever pays or with the hope of having their own TLD someday...
>>Is this not the opinion or intention of EuroISPA? It would be nice to
>>have this point clarified.
>
>To be totally honest, EuroISPA's council has in my understanding little if
>no interest in the question of an active participation in the incorporation
>of IANA. And I myself consider this question to be absolutely insignificant
>as long as it can be guaranteed that the manner of incorporation is not
>harmful to the credibility of the nIANA.
Can we then assume that Jim Dixon does not speak for EuroISPA ? He says
so... but you are saying that neither of you do... EuroISPA votes..
>>>I REALLY feel offended when I'm reading, that you are (on the PAB
>>>list) assuming, that everyone who is supporting the Berkman meeting is
>>>either to be identified with NSI or is following a hidden agenda.
>>
>>I do believe that there is such agenda. That is why I have spent the
>>last month asking for things to be taken out of the meeting agendas
>>after we had agreed that they shouldn't be there... and for some reason
>>they kept appearing... and...
>
>Seriously: I believe that many of the members of the IFWP-SC have their own
>agenda. The same goes for members of the PAB, POC, CORE, IANA and probably
>for every entity with more than one member worldwide. I too have my own
>agenda, namely to push the interests of ISPs (especially the European ISPs).
Our agenda has been to have the IFWP stick to what is was created and
supported for. Most of my actions there have been and are related to avoid
deviation from that goal, to more personal goals.
>Nevertheless I insist: to put everyone in the same pot is extremely unfair.
>If I (for once) agree with NSI in one point, that doesn't make me to their
>supporter. If I criticise the present strategy of IANA with regard to their
>manner of producing drafts (btw. with totally different arguments then
>NSI), I am still decades from being an IANA-enemy.
It is the usual Internet way of producing drafts. IETF has done it for many
years. Somebody writes and others comment. It is very easy to stay away
from commenting and then critisising. I am personally very concerned about
a SC of the IFWP that does not know how to work through e-mail. Everything
must be done in long and very expensive phone calls. E-mail and drafts in
revised versions is the usual way of the Internet.
>>Jim has made no secret of his intentions.
>
>Oh, come on, quit picking on Jim. I know that your opinions differ and that
>your sympathies could be worked on. Still, it doesn't lead to anything to
>constantly attack one another.
Again, Jim has made very clear that he wants to incorporate IANA, with
whoever is around to join him, but he thinks of it as something that he has
to do... and I do disagree with that.
>>Death of the Internet, if you re-read below what I wrote to the PAB
>>closed list, refers to letting some people -who have no relation with
>>the current structure and work for their own private interests- be
>>directors of IANA.
>It's not that easy. Not only the dumb and ever-uncorrected belong to the
>proponents of the "wrap-up process", but also some that know exactly what
>they are talking about. Therefore the "death-of-the-Internet" is a sweeping
>judgement that I strongly dislike.
I stand for it. Thinking that any one of a number of people could be in the
IANA board gives me the creeps...
Javier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:35 PST