IP: Re: ISOC Forces Announce: Open IFWP IANA Process Doomed to

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:30:51 -0400
To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
From: Don Heath <heath () isoc org>
Subject: Re: IP: ISOC Forces Announce: Open IFWP IANA Process Doomed to
  Fail
Cc: ietf () ietf org


At 09:54 AM 8/26/98 -0700, Dave Farber wrote:
> I was hesitant to burden your mail boxes with more on this , but since it
is getting wide distribution courtesy of Gordons talented typing hand, here
it goes.
> As usual responsible comments are welcomed.


Dave


When I started reading your post from Gordon Cook regarding the supposed
slip by Amadeu Abril i Abril, I feared the worst.  According to Gordon,
Amadeu had committed some horrible blunder  -  ie, that he had sent out 
a self-damning email that unintentionally made him look like a fool.  


Then, I read the entire post and my fears disappeared.  


Incredible!  Not only did Amadeu do nothing of the sort, as characterized
by Cook; but, indeed, the comments of Cook and Dixon prove to be the 
embarrassing comments -  for themselves.  Amadeu's comments are quite
reasoned, rational, and responsible.  There is nothing in them that is
at all like what Gordon Cook, or Jim Dixon try to convert/subvert them!


Gordon and Jim have reinterpreted Amadeu's notes and distorted them
outrageously!


Gordon's conspiratorial paranoia appears to have reached a new high
(low).


BTW  -  Unless, Amadeu came to the IETF this morning, I can tell you
that Gordon's statement that he is here, is false.  Amadeu has been
tirelessly flying around the world for weeks, trying to constructively
work toward international consensus through the IFWP process.  I do
not believe Amadeu ever was at the IETF in Chicago!


I have taken the liberty of editing out all of Gordon's and Jim's
editorial comments on Amadeu's email  -  as I got them from your IP
post  -  to let Amadeu's words stand on their own.  I have left only 
part of Gordon's misleading introduction.  I trust responsible
readers will make their own judgment.  The result is shown below.


Don


> Dave
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:02:54 -0400
> To: ietf () ietf org
> From: Gordon Cook <cook () cookreport com>
>
> Introduction by Gordon Cook:
>
> With a slip of the keyboard on the IFWP list today what ISOC and IANA are
> saying behind their closed doors became public. Amadeu Abril and Werner
> Staub are members of the IFWP steering committee.


<snip>


> Abril is at the IETF meeting and apparently needed help from Staub to get
> his message sent to the right place.  Apparently without thinking he typed
> in the public ifwp-list rather than the private steering committee list.
> We can be grateful that he did because, as readers will see below, he makes
> his contempt for the open IFWP process clear.


<snip>


> On Monday, 24 August 1998, Amadeu Abril i Abril [POC spokesman in buenos
> Aries on aug 20] wrote:
>
> Abril: Werner, could you please forward this message to ifwp-list? I'm
> having trouble with my outgoing mail server. August, you know ;-)) signed
> amadeau
>
> Abril: Hi SCers,[steering committee members] In the previous mail on next
> teleconf, I skipped all references to the so-called final meeting, step one
> (the Boston Tea, if you prefer). It has been my strong position that we as
> SC cannot be involved at all in the preparation of such meeting. I
> understand that thee is some level of consenus in that point.
>
> Abril: Tamar had promised to send some written coments on that meeting, but
> they have not reached my mailbox. In my view, this is a good sign.  I
> insist that this is none of SC business. But as some among us keep asking
> what everybody thinks is the best possible way to get some closure on this
> process, and at least one among us (our dear Jay) has some "penchant" to
> interprete silences, agreements and disagreements aling what he calls
> "party lines" in a way that appears a little bit unnatural, forced and even
> disturbing, I prefer to state (once again) *my* personal views on that
> issue, so anyone can check my positions within the SC against them. Perhaps
> it is useful that we all give our opinion, so we know where we stand. But
> indeed I will NOT engage in any discussion in the ifwp-discuss list
> regarding this mail or any other you could send on this topic. It is ou of
> our goals.
>
> Abril:  I'm more than skeptical about the Boston Tea step. It is misplaced,
> A) Probably useless: We know that 30 people in a room is not the best
> scenario to get anything significant achieved. What's more we know that
> many "snipers", "creamers" and what could be termed as "marginal players"
> would be invited. Self-asserting of representativeness seems to play a
> great role. This is fine for a proceess, but really dangerous for a unique
> meeting where WE CANNOT AFFORD A FAILURE. And as it is described we risk
>
> Abril: having there many folks more interested in derailing the whole
> process, making noise or just wanting to make history than closing this
> process. Rather dangereous. B) Still too unclear. No matter who sits there,
> I have not seen any attempt to clarify who-counts-for what. Saying that we
> all have to compromise is too thin a statement. Imagine that the Catalan
> Reasearch Foundation, which I represent within this process, sits there.
> Does NSI have to compromise with FCR as to the composition of the Names
> Council? And with CORE? And what happens if the ISPs represented have a
> different vision aboutthe Protocls council than IAB? And what happens if
> Joe Sims prefers California for incorporation, Tamar prefers Delaware, I
> prefer Switzerland and the rest don't care?. We all don't weight the same.
> And the relative weights are diverse according to different issues. If you
> have ten people negotiating, this can be sooved easily. If we have 30, and
> most espcially, if this means having many marginal players, the issue is
> very hard to solve. And any likely compromise, seriously compromised....
>
> Abril C) Misplaced. September 11-13 is way too late. I already pointed to
> some aspects that may not help to achieve a complete agreement. If it
> fails, even in not-that-central points, NO time would be left to recover
> form such failure. Even the task of working out the details would be
> problematic if we take that date as a start. The real work has to be done
> much before (now, just now).
>
> Abril:  D) Potentially harmful. One possible, likely otucome of this
> meeting (if everything works well, what I doubt) is the production of a
> version of the nIANA Aoi and Bylaws. Or, most likely, guidelines for
> writing them. Berkman Center, Tamar or both are as legitimated as anybody
> else to produce such documents. Perhaps a little bit more than anyobdy else
> ;-) But we cannot run in all directions, producing competing documents for
> the same goal. This is the wrost possible scenario.


Heath comment  -  Does the above look at all like that characterized by
Gordon Cook???


> Abril: So what now? I insist in what I have said many times before. In
> principle, I don't care weho actually wirttes the documents, as I would
> judge them on its contents. If it is Jeff Williams, I'd welcome it. But we
> should not forget that what we are doing is not reinventing the wheel, but
> restructuring IANA (reingeneering it, as the techies prefer to say). IANA
> has the historical responsability to take a lead in this process. Their
> active involvement and explicit support to any solution is a precondition
> of my (much less important) support.


Heath comment  -  Does the above even remotely look anything at all like
that characterized by Cook?


> Abril: Let me try to be clearer: If IANA produces a version that clearly
> deviates form what is the industry cnsensus (as expressed within IFWP and
> elsewhere), I'll oppose such move. More importantly, I'll oppose any move
> that fails to provide what I deem most relevenat in this moment: clear
> structures for wideparticipation and accountability, and room for evolution
> and change of the system as we all might deem it appropriate. And a method
> to get a strong board, able to move this difficult org forward.


Heath comment  -  Does the above look like Amadeu is an IANA lackey?


> Abril: So I'd like that Tamar, and the Berkman Cneter is that is to be
> helpfull, work with Joe Sims on the docs. I hope that all them would
> contact the real key players. And anybody else they deem important, or even
> risky to be left out. Up to them. And I hope that really soon /no later
> than the end of this week) we have the final, or nearly final version of
> such docs. With IANA as a signatory. Then I'd judge whether I support or
> oppose them. And let the community decide whose opinion they trust
> better....
>
> Abril: So in my view the Boston "first step" is at best the second one. One
> that comes when the dish is already cooked, and that could even bring some
> dangers. It is most a cosmethic meeting. If we have to play it, we'll do,
> but the further we go the most sceptical I am... Going though the three
> steps is too complicated, and evn risky. We need a lighter structure, I
> fell. As for the names in the board, I hope that a list with the best
> "nominations" will be presented. And I guess that those with less
> "opposition" will be the first board. Who should be asked about them? Well,
> let me say that I think that I should be asked. Nor the overwhelming
> majority of this SC. But, agsain, this is not up to me to decide.
>
> Abril: This has benn my scenario from day one. Two months of IFWP have not
> changed my mind. IFWP has been very yseful, much more than I first thought,
> in order to bring many players to the discussion and provide some points of
> consensus (but not enough to build the new entity). It is not that I cannot
> imagine a better scenario. Is that I cannot see any other alternative that
> could work, given the circumstances. OK. Hear you tomorrow, probably. And
> don't start a thread on this mail, please. Amadeu