Re: Unbiased Neutral Forum

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

Hi Eric,

I too would prefer a single, unified process that will 
result in a consensus.  However, as you indicate, we've 
been at this a long time, and we are still having trouble 
getting people to talk to each other.

For many months, members of Open-RSC tried to establish 
a dialogue with the leaders of CORE, PAB, and POC.  The 
only success we had was a limited conversation with CORE, 
and that was quickly shut down by John Gilmore.

Now, Jon Postel has been active behind the scenes to 
establish his own version of IANA, Inc.  He appears to be 
coordinating his efforts with the ISOC, the PAB, the POC, 
RIPE, the Aspen Institute, and the members of ITAG.

For these reasons, the IANA can't host a list and claim that
it is neutral.  If anyone else hosts a list, then IANA/ISOC 
will *claim* that it is *not* neutral.  Once again, stalemate!

As I see it, there are two very distinct groups involved 
in these debates.  I describe them as the "new" stakeholders 
(representing a large, diverse group of new user communities), 
and the IANA/ISOC group (representing the engineering and 
academic user communities).

These groups correspond to the current transition that is
occurring in the evolution of the Internet, from a predominately 
academic/research vehicle, to a world-wide commercial entity.

Both groups represent legitimate stakeholders.  They both see 
the world from different and often irreconcilable positions.  And 
they both need to reach a consensus to get past this roadblock.  

So my message is simple.  Let's recognize our differences, and
let's work towards a consensus anyway.  IANA/ISOC stakeholders 
attending GIAW is the first step towards moving this process 
forward.  

Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com


At 02:07 PM 6/15/98 -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
>I vehemently disagree with the proposition that we need to continue this
>discussion on separate lists.  The problem we are trying to solve is our
>division.   How can we move to an agreed resolution talking to ourselves in
>separate groups?  At some point, we must come together.  There must be one
>forum in which we are all willing to participate.
>
>I am reminded of the of the first lines of the old Ledbelly song,  "We're in
>the same boat, brother.  We're in the same boat, brother.  If you rock one end,
>you swamp the other."
>
>There is another issue.  What is the proper role of the IANA in all this.   Dr.
>Postel is in a trying position.  Whether or not intended, his personal role
>appears challenged.  Most humans tend to react negatively to perceived
>attacks.   We do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but nothing has
>occurred in the open which indicates to me that he has that attitude toward the
>GIAW process.  Instead, I believe he has described himself as a technical
>person with no interest in the details of governance.  He just wants to keep
>the train running.   That is how Kent Crispen described Dr Postel's proper
>role:
>
>    I want IANA to listen far more than it speaks, and I certainly don't want
>it taking
>    sides in the debates unless it is absolutely necessary.
>
>That is how Dr. Postel reportedly dealt with the IAHC.
>
>Dr. Postel may welcome the GIAW initiative IF
>
>1.  it is carried out according to its promise;
>
>2.  all interests participate; and
>
>3.  its product is sound in structure and operation.
>
>After all, his ultimate concern is and must be  protecting the baby through
>implementation of a universally acceptable and fair resolution of the
>governance issue so we can move on to the practical business of using the
>Network to facilitate our coexistence in this small common space.
>
>The GIAW process is the game now being played.  It is the only one to which we
>are all invited.  And, its product will be whatever we make it.  This
>discussion has been going on long enough for all interested parties to know
>what they want. There are a lot of big boys on the field and no one will push
>them around.   No one will quietly accept an unfair result.
>
>Furthermore, any proposal coming out of the GIAW process will have to pass
>muster with the Internet community, national governments, and various other
>players.  Unlike the product of secret deals, the GIAW product will have to be
>very good or it will get picked apart and stalled at every turn.  It can only
>work if there is genuine consensus.
>
>Is this not the time to discuss how our common goals may be accomplished?   Can
>we not negotiate the inclusion of all currently absent interests in the
>steering committee of the GIAW?   Isn't it time put down the sticks and reach a
>mutually agreed upon resolution?
>
>If this is done, we will all be winners.  And that is the name of the game I
>want to play.
>
>Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
>Internet Texoma, Inc.
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>> At 08:23 AM 6/15/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> >Just out of curiosity, who do you think could host that fondly
>> >wished-for neutral list?  The USG, maybe?
>>
>> Maybe, we should look at this from another perspective.
>>
>> Instead of trying to agree on a single, neutral list, let's
>> agree on the concept of several lists that in total, represent
>> all Internet stakeholders.
>>
>> For example, it appears that GIAW represents the "new"
>> Internet stakeholders, and IANA/ISOC represent the "old"
>> Internet stakeholders.  Consequently, both groups can and
>> should move forward, as they both represent legitimate
>> stakeholders.
>>
>> I would like to point out, however, that IANA/ISOC *are*
>> considered stakeholders to GIAW.  I sincerely hope that they
>> choose to attend the GIAW event, so that they will have a
>> better understanding of the meta view of this debate when
>> they attend their own event, INET'98.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jay Fenello
>> President, Iperdome, Inc.
>> 404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com
>>
>> --
>> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
>> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
>> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
>
>
>
>