RE: Expansion of the IAHC

[Donald Heath <heath@linus.isoc.org>]

Simon

Hmmmmm, read Perry's note again.  The primary message is in the second
paragraph.  Pretty sound advice, I'd say.

I assure you and anyone else who is interested  -  the IAHC is intent on
delivering the best resolution we can.  I intend to go beyond the limits of
this list to do that  -  and I mean organizations like EC (DG XIII), NTIA, CIX,
Domain Rights Coalition, ASEAN, and as many others as possible, to
assure as much valid input and exposure to preliminary conclusions, for the 
purposes of getting as broad a consensus as possible for the final conclusions.

Don

----------
From: 	Simon Higgs[SMTP:simon@higgs.com]
Sent: 	Wednesday, December 04, 1996 3:52 PM
To: 	Donald Heath
Cc: 	iahc-discuss@iahc.org
Subject: 	RE: Expansion of the IAHC

Don,

[NOTE: This has nothing to do with governments, or the composition of
the IAHC, or any such matter. It has everything to do with the IAHC's
willingness to address this situation in whatever way necessary to
provide real solutions to the issues we are discussing.]

Just for the record, Perry has told me in private email, and in no
uncertain terms, that his mind is already made up based on his
"historical perspective of the net", and that he has already decided
how he is going to vote. Perry's message below also indicates that this
whole situation is very inflexible (an Ad Hoc Committee, huh?) and that
it cannot/will not flex to meet the real issues on behalf of the
internet community. This leads me to understand there will be little
deliberation. If you are agreeing with Perry, then can we all assume
that you too have already decided the fate of these issues?

I'd very much like to be proven wrong on this.
> I would like to second Perry's thought.
>
> don
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Anyway, I'm sure you'll have plenty more to say on this, but just as a
> warning, I'm not replying to the thread any more. So far as I know,
> the IAHC isn't changing composition in the near future, and talk about
> that, or whether the IAHC should exist, or whether I have three heads,
> or anything else like that, isn't productive. The current IAHC is in
> place and is not going to dissolve itself or add enough members to
> turn into the U.N. general assembly. Thats pretty much a set fact.
> Given this, all discussion along those lines is pretty much pointless.
>
> The IAHC going to be deliberating and coming to a decision within a
> short time. If you want input into the decision, this is the place for
> discussing that. If you spend your time trying to make sure that the
> decisions are ones you like and can live with, I suspect you will be
> happier with the outcome than if you spend your time trying to
> convince the IAHC to commit mass suicide at dawn at or similar
> pointless noise.
>
> Perry
> Speaking for myself, not for the IAHC in an official capacity, but I
> suspect other IAHC members agree with me on this.



Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.