Re: An observation

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

Dave,

No disrespect to Thom, but his article is just that - an article. The
draft you are working on affects every single domain name holder and
every DBA holder, and every trademark holder. It will probably be seen
in the courts as thoroughly legally binding document given the
authority the IAHC have been given over the root.

On that basis, every single word uttered by the committee, every single
response, and especially every question unanswered (or not answered to
the satisfaction of the "public") will be given the utmost scrutiny.
And then after the final "policy" is published, any mistakes will
become magnified with hindsight (take NSI's dispute policy). As Don
Heath says "it's about doing the right thing".

I know it's not an easy job that you are doing, and we wish all the
committee members the very best for taking on this role. This is all
about nurturing and growing new parts of the internet. Just remember
that in order for seeds to grow, you have to cover them with a lot of
fertilizer.  ;)


> Thom,
>
> At 8:04 PM -0800 12/23/96, Thom Stark wrote:
> >> of a proposed CORE-MoU in the posted document. I think the general
> >> details are probably not something we are anxious to change, but I'm
> ...
> >It seems to me that when Mr. Metzger speaks in terms of "details"
> >as something that "we are not anxious to change", he is both speaking
> >specifically for the IAHC, rather than himself, and making it pretty
> >clear that the IAHC has, indeed, made up its mind on the issue and that
> >the "draft" is being looked on by the IAHC as a much more finished
> >document than they have been insisting it is.
>
> 	Public advocacy prior to publication.  Interesting mode you've
> chosen.
>
> 	Even in this new age of varying journalistic styles, you are
> showing considerable uniqueness.  Going even further, to over-interpret
> simple statements and to form substantive opinions without talking directly
> to the principals is really quite exceptional.  Using the kinds of
> evaluative criteria about you that you, yourself, seem to be applying, I
> might find myself thinking that you were more interested in exacerbating
> divisiveness than in providing balanced review...
>
> 	Folks might have noticed that I've been making a point of avoiding
> personal confrontation and attack.  But having a professional journalist
> send a note like yours is pretty irritating.
>
> 	Here's a question for you:  how would you like to spend a couple of
> months on a topic that is highly politicized before you even get started,
> culminating in two 12 hour group sessions, a public exchange, and then a
> marathon writing/editing/reviewing cycle for 3 days, finally issuing a
> specification that attempts to compromise among myriad constraining and
> sensitive issues, looking forward to roughly one month for public review,
> followed by 2 weeks for making revisision, but THEN be told that you should
> have issued the first draft with the idea of planning to do major re-writes?
>
> 	One suspects, Mr. Stark, that you do not enjoy sweating over an
> article and then having an editor throw it out and tell you to start over.
> Well, neither do I.  One might summarize your position in such a situation
> as being "not anxious to change".  Applying it to the IAHC work, therefore,
> is quite accurate.  I, for one, am not "anxious" to make changes, but that
> doesn't mean I won't lobby to make them, if I see the need.
>
> 	For you to offer assessments of the whole committee's position,
> based on a relatively few messages from a small number of members, is
> downright bizarre.  I would directly request you document such an assertion
> and that you show some care in the kinds of sweeping assessment you make,
> since that is what professional journalists are supposed to do.
>
> 	This topic has a two year history.  This topic has extensive
> commentary from all sectors.  This topic is just plain difficult.  Please
> show some respect for its complexity.
>
> >And I'm here to tell you that *my* perception is that *you* (the IAHC)
> >appear pretty high-handed, stubborn and unresponsive, thus far.  In
>
> 	Thom, I look forward to equally fair and balanced language in your
> article.  One might wonder at the extent to which your evaluative
> vocabulary might, equally, be applied to your own work, based on your
> public utterances.  (No, I don't think it's pleasant to be on the receiving
> end of such silliness, either, Thom.)
>
> >particular, the constant referral to the wording of "the draft", as if
> >it were holy writ, bothers me a great deal.  As a professional writer,
>
> 	Thom, you clearly lack much experience in public processes like
> this.  If you had any, you'd discover that the linguistic modes, here, are
> really quite common.  Monitor an array of IETF lists for background,
> please, before making such glib (and inaccurate) assessments.
>
> >I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the
>
> 	Ok:  You are wrong.
>
> >concept of a draft proposal is one of a document put forward as a kind
> >of stake in the ground--a concretized set of ideas serving as a point
>
> 	Please send me a copy of your article two weeks before final
> submission.  I will be glad to return it one week later, indicating the
> massive changes that you will be expected to make as part of a group
> consultative process.
>
> >I also hope that you will not let the artificial March deadline push
> >you to prematurely close the colloquoy.  I'd much rather see you get
> >this puppy right the first time than see you bring a fundamentally
> >flawed STANDARD in "on time".
>
> 	And I'm sure the editors receiving your article will be glad to
> change the deadline, giving you any amount of time you wish, to 'get the
> article right'.
>
> d/
>
>
> (read the last line, please)
> ----------------------------
> Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
> Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
> 127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
> Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org
>
> Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions


Regards,

Simon

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