Re: PAB [ooblick@NETPOLICY.COM: Open Letter to the Internet Community]

Kent Crispin (
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:57:41 -0700

On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 03:22:01AM +0200, Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > FYI...
> >
> > -----Forwarded message from Mikki Barry <ooblick@NETPOLICY.COM>-----
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:59:30 -0500
> > Reply-To: Mikki Barry <ooblick@NETPOLICY.COM>
> > Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <>
> > From: Mikki Barry <ooblick@NETPOLICY.COM>
> > Subject: Open Letter to the Internet Community
> >
> > Open Letter to the IFWP:
> > Friday, June 26, 1998
> mr.crispin could you comment/explain a little on this
> thank you
> sascha

There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the validity of
the IFWP activities (International Forum for the White Paper, This concern has two foci:

First, a general concern was that the original sponsor seemed to be
NSI, though NSI officials at first disclaimed any relation, and the
original statements by the group (which was originally called the
"GIAW" -- something like the "Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop")
made it seem as if the whole thing was an effort by NSI to preempt any
other efforts to form a new IANA. That is, there was some fear (on my
part at least) that this group might represent an attempt by NSI to
hijack the process.

Second, a more specific concern for MoU supporters was that the
original sponsors/participants list was conspicuous in the presence of
MoU opponents, and conspicuous in the lack of MoU supporters.

I can't say how valid those concerns were -- there were lots of weird
events; the web page changes frequently; the list of sponsors has
changed; now there are three proposed meetings instead of one etc etc
etc. Everything seems in disarray, and, as the letter I posted
indicates, deep divisions.

The current situation is that CIX (a large US-based group of ISPs) is
currently running things -- in particular, it appears that Barbara
Dooley (head of CIX) is doing it all now. I recently heard that she
is dealing with a personal sadness that inclines me to a sympathetic
perspective, but I think it is fair to say that she has never been a
friend of the MoU.

The prime significance of the letter, from my perspective, is that it
it underscores even more the importance of the current IANA in all
this: The internet community is divided into warring factions, but
we don't dare call on governmental authority to try to mediate. So
we have to find the best fair forum we can, and it is my personal
belief that IANA is the only one that fits the bill.

Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55