Re: Unbiased Neutral Forum

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay and all,

Jay Fenello wrote:

> 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.

  Yes this has been at the crux of the communication process for
some time now.  This started when the IAHC process refused to
listen to the RSC groups or even considered them legitimate stakeholders.

>
>
> 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.

  Well let's not point fingers at this stage as it only serves to lengthen
the communications lines.  Rather lets be conciliatory in a being
open to all parties participating in the transition process.  This will serve
as a more open process for all concerned.

>
>
> 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.

  I hope that this is not ALL of the stakeholders that Jon Postel is
consulting with.  If so he is in violation with the WP mandate.  That would
be another huge mistake on the part of the IANA and the IAB.

>
>
> 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!

  The thing for the GAIW to do is to publicly and explicitly invite
the IANA, ISOC and the IAB directly to the scheduled conference
and also silicit their ideas into its structure so as to show willingness
in a neutral forum.  That simple.

>
>
> 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).

  Well actually we represent both groups, and we see that it is necessary
for all sides to collectively work together.  Within our organization's that has
not been a big problem.  Why should it be in other's?  The real problem here
is lack of trust and input in the process.  The WP mandated that this must be done.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes, and this transition is or will be historic in it's culmination when and
if it occurs.  That being the case, a governance model must be decided upon
first.  Without that model and structure, you will have never ending debates
and progress will be very slow in coming if at all.  This would be a travesty
to the Internet commercial interests, and therefore should be in their best interest

to dissuade such lack of trust behavior.

>
>
> 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.

  We don't wholly agree with you here Jay.  Rather, we see them as
indivisible as they are part and parcel in and of themselves.

>
>
> 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.

  It doesn't matter it it is the GIAW or the IANA or IAB, or the ISOC that
sponsors these conferences, in fact it is possible that all of them should do so
and invite and coordinate with all stakeholder groups for each conference as
to its structure and places and times for those conferences to occur.

>
>
> 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"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com