COOK Announces: Wild accusations more important than facts
Dave Crocker
The community is attempting to pursue reasoned discourse. This permits
differing views to be expressed. It's quite creative of you to assess such
differences as somehow relating to a conspiracy.
At 01:02 AM 8/26/98 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>With a slip of the keyboard on the IFWP list today what ISOC and IANA are
It is usual to attribute to "organizations" statements which represent
official positions. It is usual to attribute to "members of" groups those
statements which are made by participants within a group but which do not
(yet) have any claim to formal organizational position.
This is standard methodology among reporters attempting any level of
judicious work. I guess that explains why the distinction is ignored in
your writing.
>saying behind their closed doors became public. Amadeu Abril and Werner
>Staub are members of the IFWP steering committee. Abril is a POC spokes
>person and Staub is ISOC Geneva. Both are good foot soldiers for Don Heath
Heaven forbid that these folks might have opinions of their own. You
persist in the model of personal demonization, rather than entertaining the
possibility of legitimate constituency. You persist as ascribing to Don
Heath a conspiracy that has no basis in fact. It's a shame that you don't
really know Don or the work he does, or you might appreciate the truly wry
humor in the idea that he could/would orchestrate a conspiracy. It's
equally curious that you know so little about the other people you cite so
as to miss the fact of their rather strong and independent personalities.
I'm sure they are capable of taking orders from someone, but I haven't met
such a person yet.
>president of ISOC who on June 10th went public with his strategy to
>overwhelm the IFWP process (International forum on the White paper which
And let us note that you persist in ignoring the repeatedly-offered
historical review concerning the origins of the IFWP and, for that matter,
fundamental changes in support by many members of the community. The GIAW
was begun as a highly closed and manipulative process. It transmogrified
into the IFWP which is not without its own problems but is a serious effort
and is pursuing broad community discourse.
ISOC has become a direct participant in the IFWP and sponsored the Geneva
IFWP meeting, so the claim that it is trying to disrupt the IFWP runs
entirely contrary to observable fact.
>I hope list members will read and savor Abril's arrogance. Abril,
As if Abril is the only one dripping with that particular aroma in your note?
>POC/CORE, ISOC, IANA knew what the end game was some months ago. The
>script was theirs to write. They now realize that their only hope is to
>remain aloof from the IFWP process and offer instead a package dressed in
It would probably help if you gained some familiarity with the IFWP
discussions, before claiming that comments and concerns about it are
somehow part of a conspiracy to derail it. What you have apparently missed
is that there is a very broad and strong concern, from many people, about
the holding of the wrap-up meeting. The concern is based on the
straightforward observation that holding such a meeting is viewed as
directly contrary to the basis on which the IFWP was started.
So we have the fact the concern about the meeting involves many who are not
ISOC related and we have the fact that the meeting is likely to violate the
original terms of IFWP creation.
What a shame that such facts run contrary to your conspiracy theory.
Otherwise you might be willing to pay attention to them.
>the uniform of the "opinion of the internet community." Their package will
>indeed be presented to Ira Magaziner as the consensus of the internet
>community because they are taking great care not to offer legitimacy to
>anyone who comes from outside their point of view. They have a solution.
>Jon will present it to the IETF in the morning. Having a wrap up meeting
Gordon, perhaps you have missed the fact that the IANA draft has been
undergoing a series of revisions, each one made public? As I recall, we
are currently on version 3. Further YOUR OWN STATEMENTS acknowledge that
those revisions have been responsive to public feedback.
So, again, we see that you are willing to ignore facts you don't like, even
when you are the source of those facts. That's pretty darned impressive.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave CROCKER Brandenburg Consulting
<mailto:dcro...@brandenburg.com> <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1(408)246 8253 Fax: +1 408 273 6464 Tel: +60(19)3299 445
675 Spruce Drive P. O. Box 296, UPM
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Serdang, Selangor 43400
United States Malaysia