Re: PAB [ooblick@NETPOLICY.COM ...]

Javier SOLA (
Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:53:01 +0000

So far, three meeting have been called:

A meeting in the US, organised mainly by NSI and CIX. There has been an
ongoing game of changing sponsors and ownership of the domain name, which, in a given week, changed almost daily... from an employee
of NSi's home address to CIX, to somebody else, back to CIX...

In order to get international support, they have now created something
else, IFWP, which includes some of the above, NSi has officially
dissapeared from the list (which is probably just a PR move) and excludes
some (DNRC), while adding an ISP organisation from Asia Pacific, one from
the European Union and one from Canada. ISOC has declared that it that it
should be at all places where action takes place, and therefore they will
attend these meetings if they take place.

No meetings othe than the one in the US have yet been proposed by this

The European Union Commission has called for a meeting of European Union
industry and user representatives that will take place in Brussels on July
7th. The agenda will be posted soon. I understand (and this is only my
personal understanding) that this meeting does not attempt to come out with
*the truth* but to be an exchange of ideas between EU parties and has hopes
of being able to come out with some input for the process.

The most important meeting so far will take place in Geneva on July
24/25th, during INET, we expect all interested parties to show up there.

My impression is that no major decissions will come out of these meetings,
except input for the process, such as recommendations or agreements on
requirements that the bylaws of nIANA (new IANA) must include.

Something must be in place by September 30th and we expect much more
activity to take place.


At 22:48 26/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 02:20:31AM +0000, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but as I'm only a member of this (PAB) list and IETF list,
>> I'm having rather a hard time following the acronymns. I don't
>> understand who/what/where is GIAW and IFPW. Anyone willing to
>> elaborate?
>> If I remember correctly, DNRC was the organization of the pirates?
>No, the "Domain Name Rights Coalition" is quite different from that.
>I don't follow their position very closely, but I believe its
>fundamental nourishment is a dislike for the unification of domain
>names and trademarks. At that level I have a fair amount of sympathy
>for their position, since I have personal reservations about the
>whole notion of "intellectual property"...but maybe I don't
>understand their position, after all.
>Anyway, the idea GIAW (Global Incorporation Alliance Workshop, I
>think) was hatched very soon after the WP came out -- I think Tony
>Rutkowski mentioned it in his congressional testimony less than a week
>later, before anyone had ever heard of it. Bob Shaw found the early
>stages of their web site, and the list of participants looked like a
>who's who of MoU haters. That raised hackles; and the web site
>quickly started changing.
>The GIAW disappeared, and the IFWP (International Forum for the White
>Paper) rose from the ashes. There are now supposed to be three
>meetings, in different regions of the world, one apparently hosted by
>EuroISPA, and the other in Asia? I forget.
>The significance of all these meetings -- there is the INET thing,
>and another one hosted by some facet of the EU, and there will
>probably be others -- is hard to judge. People are very excited by
>the notion of "internet governance", but assignment of numbers and
>names may be a fairly feeble reality next to the ideal of an
>independent cybernation that seems to fuel a lot of this...
>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