I think everybody is waiting to see if the IFWP turns to dust, or
whether it should be seriously considered. The emerging feeling (I
won't use the word consensus) seems to be that the IFWP should be
seriously considered. There is no doubt that it will be an important
voice.
Given the genesis of the IFWP, then, I agree that it is vitally
important that *all* the groups you mention produce input -- the POC
has produced an "open letter" to IANA already, and another is on the
way. However, the PAB, as I mentioned, is unique. It really is the
most direct representative of the signatories of the MoU -- more
direct than POC or any other group. It is my feeling that we actually
have a duty to take that seriously.
*************************
On the middle fork of the American River is a rapid known as Tunnel
Chute. The river made a big horseshoe bend there, and miners blasted
a tunnel through the rock to cut off the bend. The rocks are jagged
and sharp, and the channel is only a few feet wider than a raft.
Under high water conditions I imagine that the tunnel is completely
submerged, but mostly it is about half full of water. Even at half
full it looks like the business end of a firehose.
It's *very* important to go through straight, because if you get
turned at all the raft will hit the walls, and it is all over then --
everybody is out, probably banging against very sharp rocks.
But going in straight is complicated by a side flow that comes in on
the left -- if you don't compensate for it you get pushed sideways,
into the walls, and you crash. The way you compensate is by the
paddler in front making one or two strong side strokes to pull
the nose of the raft back to the left.
Intense whitewater is not as dense or buoyant as still water, because
there is a fair percentage of air in it. By the time you hit this
side stream you are in the midst of total chaos, and, if you are the
front paddler, it is very difficult to lean way out over the tube of
the raft to make those necessary strokes.
We are the front paddler.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
> > Still i would like to see what the I* has to say. As for the PAB, > what can we "do?" > > -rick > > On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > I honestly have no particular ax to grind in this matter -- I will, > > as always, express my personal opinions in various places. But I > > think the collective voice of those who have supported the MoU should > > have an opportunity to be heard, if it wishes to speak. > > > > Comments, please. > > > > -- > > Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", >
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html