Subject: Re: [ifwp] regarding potential new IANA initial board members

From: [email-masked] (Peter Deutsch)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 17:56:24 -0400

Gordon,

[ You wrote: ]

> so  jon postel has spoken.......

You know, this whole process would go a whole lot smoother
if we could somehow all check our attitudes at the door. Or
at least keep them pointed at the ground, instead of waving
them around like this. What's the rule? Always assume your
attitude is loaded?... ;-)

.  .  .
> what we have is a recipe to leave the IANA technical staff and ISOC in full
> control.  Yes by all means t hey should control the implimentation of the
> bits....[a la vixie and malamud's complaint] but someone who understands
> the politics and econmics and commerce has to control the technical folk
> from the board. 

Isn't that what Jon himself is saying? He seems to have
indicated he thinks we should have senior management with
some cachet and a proven track record in policy formulation
and dispute resolution, not just well-known participants
from the disputes that have tracked the process so far.
>From my reading of the appropriate documents this is a
management and policy oversight group, not a technical
group and asking for very experienced management types and
representatives from public policy groups with a proven
track record seems like a good idea.

Remember, the SOs exist for technical review and policy
recommendations.

> .  .  . When jon puts forth criteria that would exclude someone
> like einar stefferud who was one of the builders of the internet, is a
> senior retired individual, is perhaps the best diplomat in the internet and
> has devoted huge amounts of time over the past year to help craft a process
> that would preserve the integrity and independence of the net from special
> interests, the process is totally broken.

Since you mention specific names, it's worth responding to
your specific example.

With his pivotal role in creating ORSC, Einar has become
clearly identified with the major would-be commercial DNS
faction in this debate and thus represents a group of
people who could collectively be seen as standing to
benefit from his presence on the board. I submit that this
puts him in a strong potential conflict-of-interest
situation if he were to sit on the management board at
this time.

I'm not saying Einar would abuse the position - far from
it. But the bottom line is, you can't be simultaneously a
lobbyist and a member of Congress. You have to choose
one role at a time...

Because of this, I would suggest that Einar, much as he
has contributed to this debate, is not a suitable
candidate for the Board at this point.

This doesn't mean that there is no role for people with
his qualifications. In reviewing the ongoing debate on the
ifwp list, and the supplemental material put out by the
Boston group, I have been persuaded to the Boston group's
view that the proposed SOs should be permitted a role in
suggesting and reviewing policy, but must not subsequently
be given executive power to carry out the implementation
of such policy.

I do hope this position prevails in the final documents
and in this light, I would suggest that ORSC (and more
particularly, Einar) could well participate at the SO
level, assuming the SOs provide comment and feedback on
policy, but don't themselves implement it.

> .   .  .  Of  course one additional
> small problem is that we have as yet no nomination for IANA CEO....anyone
> notice that?

I do share the concern you seem to be expressing here
about the closed nature of IANA's role in this process,
but having witnessed the on-going bunfight that passes for
debate on the IFWP list, I can't really say I blame Jon
for not trying to become engaged there. The one other time
in recent weeks I saw him post something to the net on
this topic (I presume it also went to the IETF list), Bob
Allisat immediately replied in the rudest and most
scatalogical terms possible. No surprise, perhaps, but not
one person from the IFWP community posted a follow-up
criticizing Allisat's behaviour or indicating that this
posting had anything but the support of that community.

How can the IFWP collective expect to be taken seriously
if list members carry on in such a manner? It's as if the
IFWP participants talk about being a collective process
one minute and disclaim any collective responsibility the
next.

Yes, I think Jon has handled the "P.R." aspect of this
whole process very poorly, but most people seem to agree
that the documents that have been cycled through are not
that bad.  Not perfect, and I do hope he responds to the
specific submissions of the Boston group and EFF, but
given the amount of attitude circulating I can't really
see how IFWP participants can expect him to engage, when
there is this kind of reception waiting for him. 

And that's the sad part. All this criticism of closed
processes would ring more true, if there was not so
gosh-darned much attitude accompanying it. Sometimes, you
can hear the message for the messager...

					- peterd

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Peter Deutsch,                                 (514) 875-8611  (phone)
  Bunyip Information Systems Inc.                   (514) 875-8134  (fax)
    <[email-masked]>                             http://www.bunyip.com

 "The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to any fishing
  contest not conducted for profit wherein prizes are awarded for the specie,
  size, weight, or quality of fish caught by contestants in any bona fide
  fishing or recreational event."

                title 18, United States Code, Section 1305. Fishing contests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:39:07 -0400

Peter.... a reasonable reply

>attitude is loaded?... ;-)

Jon speaks little these days...  seriously, I plead  guilty to an
'attitude" but   if I have an attitude so does harvard's larry lessig....
distatseful or not jon should have participated openly in this process

>> the politics and econmics and commerce has to control the technical folk

 sorry let me phrase it differently.  there need be a board which
understands things well enough to let the technical folk do the technology
in such away that  the needs of the supporting organizations will not get
ridden roughshod over by the engineers of the CTO and CEO of IANA.

>from the disputes that have tracked the process so far.

Can the suits resolve disputes without adequate understanding of the
technology??  How do the suits get educated as to the technical issues such
that they can resolve disputes fairly?

>track record seems like a good idea.

again....my question is who is gonna educate them?  you did not answer that.
>lobbyist and a member of Congress. You have to choose

My perception is that einar is more interested in process issues than in
specific policies that would benefit one group of DNS issues over another.
I hope he will speak for himself here shortly, but what I sense is terribly
important to preserving for the new commercial internet is stef's
understanding of the decision making processes than have enabled those of
you who built the internet to do something unprecedented in the history of
telecommunications by way of developing a technology under the noses of the
great corporations and most powerful governments of the word and doing it
independently of them in such a way that their favorite solutions were
turned into info superhighway road kill.  start running the internet like a
typical corporation and you kill the creativity.  isn't that what t his is
all about?

>candidate for the Board at this point.

Sorry, to discard the one most likely board candidate who understands the
process issues worth preserving for the sake of the internet as a whole is
ludicrous.  ORSC is about an OPEN process....  NOT about one group of
special interest getting its names in the root before another.

>be given executive power to carry out the implementation

ARGH....do i hear you correctly!?  the non technical retired corporate
board must no be responsible for carrying out technical policy on behalf of
the suppoprting organizations?  this falls straight into the trap that stef
warned about of giving the board so much power that we will never cease to
fight over who gets onto the board.

>for not trying to become engaged there.

OK. maybe yes maybe no but he didn't even get engaged on his own lsit.

 The one other time
>posting had anything but the support of that community.

I am not an allisat supporter.

>can hear the message for the messager...

when the process is closed it makes it helluva lot harder not to have an
attitude in pointing same out.
>					- peterd

***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet            New Special Report: Building Internet
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA  Infrastructure ($395) available. See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)           http://www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                    Index to 6 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
***************************************************************************

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 19:39:07 -0400

The one other time