[apnic-talk] RE: Meeting in Geneva and IFWP
Patrick,
I agree with you that the meeting in Geneva may have more people involved
and that is good. The IFWP effort is to try and consolidate views from the
various meetings and more importantly to try and set guidelines acceptable
to everyone on how the organisation makes decisions, not to make decisions
at the meeting. There are many policy and legal issues on due process,
transparency, accountability, dispute settlement etc. I understand that the
DC meeting is driven by a Professor of Law, Dr Frankel, who is a neutral
party with academic interest and experience in structural building of
organisations to ensure fair representation and participation.
Hopefully people will fully understand what is ACTUALLY involved in these
meetings- the details that need to be made to ensure a new entity that is
acceptable to the whole world, not just the US. The idea of the regional
meetings is to gather input into the process, and refine it to cultural
sensitivities. An agenda for the DC meeting will soon be posted on the IFWP
website, Worth an effort to check it out. Problem I find is everyone is too
quick to jump to conclusions about what is being decided, without realising
that this is an institutional building/apparatus building process which
solicits global views.
I would again strongly encourage others to come on Board the IFWP process
as issues of structure will be discussed. By getting neutral parties such
as academics to chair the meetings, hopefully we can go beyond *histories*
and positioning.
Laina RG
--- On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 07:24:26 -0400 Patrik
=?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf at swip dot net> wrote:
I got this forwarded to me, as a member of POC:
>>Toru,
>>
>>I think you would like to know that Don Heath was on the conference call
to
>>organise the IFWP, and has indicated that he will support it. The Geneva
>>summit will be coordinated to be a part of the European IFWP process. He
>>has also indicated that he will get Postel's support as well.
>>
>>Bottom line is everybody is trying to come together, and to put their
>>*histories* behind them. I don;t think it is wise to bring up these
>>*histories* up again. Time to move on,
>>
>>Laina RG
>>
>>--- On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23:59:41 +0900 toru <toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP> wrote:
>>I don't believe IFWP is representing all of activities. I think we have
to
>>concentrate Geneva summit, first. IFWP is making one separate from IANA.
We
>>need IANA now and tommorow. The Internet should be stable, anyway.
>>
>>Toru Takahashi
It is the view of the POC that the first meeting where substantial progress
can be made regarding the white paper is in Geneva adjacent with the INET
conference. If nothing else because people from all over the world will be
in Geneva and the INET conference.
The meeting in Washington will not attract as many players because of two
reasons:
- Time, travel to Washington is not easy
- It was not announced as an NSI initiative, even though it is
The problem for me with the second issue was that if it was announced as an
initative from NSI from the beginning, I would be more positive in planning
a trip there. As it is now, many players are and will be missing.
The Washington meeting seem to be a meeting for a certain group of people /
organizations, and it is important that such coalitions meet, and send
input to the IANA creation process.
But, the Washington meeting will not attract all players in the field. Just
look at the list of participating organizations and you'll see. Currently
it seem to be driven by CIX, which certainly does not have a neutral
standpoint.
So, regardless of if IFWP will be an organization that will be able to
create substantial input to the process or not, the meeting in Geneva will
be very very important. Especially as some ccTLD groups (for example the
Asian one) will also meet earlier in the week.
I read the comment from Toru just says that it is more important to do work
than create new organizations. Also, that the current memebers of IFWP that
was listed unfortunately are only from one "group" of organizations.
And, Laina, you talk about history. Well, it is the view of quite a
substantial group of organizations in the world that what is in the white
paper is exactly the same thing as what was in the IAHC initiative from
IANA and ISOC. So, why should the result be different than what POC has
created?
At this stage, it is impossible to forget the history (just watch the
postings by some few people to the gtld-mou list which makes that list
unusable), and one should not throw away the history of the POC, and what
POC has created. That is throwing away three years of intense work trying
to solve the problem that was explicitelty listed in the whitepaper.
The solution can be tuned in different ways (just look carefully on the
open letter from POC to IANA), but the overall solution can not be much
different.
Regards, Patrik
-----------------End of Original Message-----------------
-------------------------------------
Name: Laina Raveendran Greene
E-mail: laina at singnet dot com dot sg
Date: 23/06/98
Time: 00:07:51
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *