CIX's Position in the IFWP Steering Committee detailed below
Eric Weisberg
> >From Barbara Dooley to IFWP Steering Committee mail list on behalf of the
> CIX:
> 2. CIX would not or could not committ to participating in a so called
> "negotiating session ..."
> 3. We fail to see the need for a publically convened ratification meeting...
> CIX intends to publically endorse an acceptable draft and slate of interim
> board members. That will be its ratification.
>
> 4. We believe that IANA is interested in producing a draft which meets the
> general endorsement of constituencies which are currently withholding
> endorsement. The final final draft will also have to name the interim
> board incorprators...
First--Thank you Gordon. You have provided good service to the community by your
report.
Second--It sounds like CIX is double-crossing its "former" partners and cutting a
deal with IANA et al for designing the entity and appointing the board without
IFWP participation.
Third--The function of an "open, transparent and fair process" was simply a ploy
to give certain big players a seat at the table. The gambit worked and they no
longer need the IFWP process nor the pawns they have moved so slowly down the
board.
Fourth--The transparency of this play has allowed all to see and understand what
the terms "consensus" and "open" really mean in Internet governance and why the
call for guarantees of due and open process are so urgent and essential to those
not sitting at the table where decisions are being made.
Fifth--The IFWP process was well conceived in its promise, despite the treachery
in its execution, and can still be salvaged to at least stalemate if not trump the
usurpers, PROVIDED WE HAVE THE WILL.
Sixth--It is clear that the rats which have abandoned the IFWP ship would have
scuttled it before reaching port if they had remained on board. It is better that
they are gone so we may actually get something done. In fact, I would object to
their playing any further role.
My questions:
1. What is really at "stake?" <for us/for those who want so badly to monopolize
the process?>
2. Is Jim Flemming correct that this is not worth getting excited about?
3. Should the remnant of the IFWP dedicated to negotiating a fair, open and
"democratic" solution continue the process to closure?
4. What should be our next steps?
Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
Internet Texoma
>
Jim Fleming
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Weisberg <weis...@texoma.net>
<snip>
Since you asked...
>
>My questions:
>
>1. What is really at "stake?" <for us/for those who want so badly to
monopolize
>the process?>
>
IPv4 and IPv6 address space resources are
somewhat at stake. Attempts by people to
capture them for their own financial gain are
going unnoticed while people are being
distracted with the domain name debates.
That strategy was articulated by I* people
long ago and appears to still be working.
In my opinion, IPv4, IPv6 and for that matter
IPv8 address space resources should be FREE !!
Or, people should not be profiting from the
sale/lease/loan/delegation/allocation etc. of
those critical resources without strict scrutiny
on what costs are actually involved (if any) to
manage those allocations.
>2. Is Jim Flemming correct that this is not worth getting excited about?
>
I think that it is more important to get excited
about the IPv4 address space management
issues than the TLD debates. TLDs are now
being created, they are being tested in various
Root Name Server Clusters around the world
and soon the legacy Root Name Server Cluster
that has been controlled by the U.S. Government
will no longer have excuses from the NSF about
why the new TLDs can not be recognized there.
In summary, TLDs are in good shape.
>3. Should the remnant of the IFWP dedicated to negotiating a fair, open
and
>"democratic" solution continue the process to closure?
>
As I have said, I believe that the people that
have assembled with good intentions under the
IFWP banner and who have now become better
educated about the issues should move forward
with ANY MEETING THEY WANT and the topic
of that meeting should focus on the REAL problems
and NOT problems that some people are trying
to divert people's attention to, in order to distract
attention from their financial boondoggles they
continue to operate without public oversight.
>4. What should be our next steps?
>
I suggest that you have your meeting in Boston
and focus on the real problem....IN-ADDR.ARPA.
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
Dave Paulsen
> 2. Is Jim Flemming correct that this is not worth getting excited about?
>
Well, in some ways. His agenda, of course, is IPvX. Which, I also believe, is
more important in the grand scheme of things than the hoopla over TLDs.
Some of his concerns, however, are equally valid in both debates.
Other TLDs are being successfully used--on a technical level. And, on a
technical level, the IP address space problem could be migrated more
smoothly into TNG if some of the "big boys" (and I use this term loosely here
(no, it's _mine_, you can't _make_ me give it back)) would aggregate/return
more of the current address space.
Part of the problem in both debates is the concern over whose "deserving"
pockets the profits are going into, and especially on the in-addr.arpa side,
that profiteering not take place on the _necessary_ resource. I mean, a TLD
is just a string of characters, and with GUIs, no longer of much real use
outside of marketing. For Internet based communications to occur at all,
though, you _need_ an affordable, routable, IP address.
I think for efficient, ubiquitous use of Internet technologies, both TLDs and
IPvX need to be based on open protocol standards, and centrally managed
(even with a regional second tier for day to day operations) to prevent
collisions and non-reachable sites. As far as I'm aware, the only way to have
this, at least on this particular planet, is either with a "benign" government
agency, or an international non-profit organization, ideally run by geeks.
And I make that last little comment because _what_ people do on the
Internet is a social phenomena and the capitalists, politicians, and marketers
can do what they will to try to sleaze their way into the mindset of the user;
that people _can_ do what they will on the Internet is solidly in the domain of
the engineer and meddling merely decreases efficiency.
_dave_(seemingly obligatory and definitely resource wasting .sig)
Jim Dixon
> My good mr. barrows before you attempt to smear me you might read to the
> end of the post and see that I took the extra trouble to find out the CIX
> board position and faithfully report that position. The CIX's position was
> not publically known. i made it known. do you prefer for us to live in
> the dark? This is a two way medium. if i misrepresented any of the CIX
> process i will expect to see it documented and com,plained about. until
> then good day mr barrows
My company is a member of the CIX. In this particular instance we
learned from Gordon Cook's article much more about CIX policy than
we have learned through communications from the CIX itself.
We are therefore grateful to Gordon for his efforts (and less than
happy with the CIX).
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
Jim Fleming
Thanks for the summary. To clarify, my main agenda
is not IPv6 or IPv8. My main agenda is to help create
more resources and to allow those resources to find
their way into people's hands around the world with
as low a distribution cost as possible to help allow
more people to use the Internet without funding a
bunch of lounge lizards to fly around the world every
time they feel like it funded by taxes they collect from
the disadvantaged people that they have under their
thumbs....or IN-ADDR.ARPA.
I was hopeful that the IETF (without the ISOC) would
continue to be a good group to help encourage the
low-cost distribution of resources. It now appears that
the new IANA Inc. may be a better facilitator for that
mission because the IETF has been captured by the
ISOC "suits". Even though the IFWP people mean well,
they have now attracted the IAHC CORE crowd that
is mainly looking to cash in on some quick buck
schemes. I am hopeful that Jon Postel saw enough
of the IAHC result to know better than to go near the
IFWP this time around. He has also been able to
witness the "members only" approach used in ARIN
and which the IFWP people seem to think provides
a democracy. I am confident that Jon Postel and the
various old-school IETF people will be able to push
forward to move the IANA Inc. to a point where it
is legally disjoint from the ISOC and the IETF. When
that occurs, we might have a chance to all work
to renew the faith and to bring more resources to
people around the world at a low cost.
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com