Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations

[Jim Fleming]

On Sunday, July 20, 1997 8:55 AM, Eric Weisberg[SMTP:weisberg at texoma.net] wrote:
@ Randy Bush wrote:
@ > 
@ > > Why the hell do you people keep confusing the administration
@ > > of network resources with the governing of nations?
@ > 
@ > Because they think they understand enough of one of them to project their
@ > understanding on the other.
@ > 
@ > randy
@ 
@ This is a serious question, so I accept your serious concern.  However,
@ I am disturbed by your need for an explanation, which, quite frankly, I
@ thought to be self-evident and clearly understood.
@ 
@ 1.  We are NOT discussing the distribution of private resources, but of
@ COMMUNAL PROPERTY (in the legal sense).  In other words, the resources
@ do not belong to ARIN, but to the users it purports to serve;
@ 
@ 2.  The resources involved are not just limited and valuable, but are
@ ESSENTIAL; 
@   
@ 3.  Furthermore, YOU are not discussing a distributed form of
@ management, but CENTRALIZED and MONOPOLISTIC.  If you had come up with a
@ COMPETITION or free MARKET BASED model for distributing these resources,
@ the answer would probably been significantly different;
@ 
@ 4.  Regulation and distribution of such assets is a communal function
@ and concern.  This is the traditional and legal responsibility of
@ government, though it may be delegated to private entities, as well. 
@ How and by whom the regulations are created is called "governance;"
@ 
@ 5.  How the governing bodies of entities are chosen and the rules by
@ which they conduct their activities determines the results of their
@ deliberations.  In other words, a legislature run by the Green Party
@ will not come up with the same results as one under the control of the
@ Monarchists.  Likewise, a body controled by the RBOCs may see things
@ differently from one controlled by AT&T/MCI, etc.  A body which
@ represents all interests may reach even different conclusions on what is
@ best for the network.
@ 
@ 6. Why governance of an entity entrusted with the EXCLUSIVE monopoly to
@ distribute and regulate limited, valuable and essential communal assets
@ is of critical concern to all who are dependent upon the reasonable,
@ fair and equal performance of those functions should not require
@ explanation to someone who is being considered to serve on the BofT of
@ such entity.
@ 
@ I am shocked by the audacity of your criticism.   In my opinion, your
@ repeatedly expressed insensitivity to this issue and your arrogance in
@ dealing with those who are legitimately concerned about how this
@ resourse is to be handled disqualifies you to perform the function you
@ have arrogated to yourself (or, at least accepted).  This is precisely
@ why we need an elected govening board from the very beginning.  
@ 
@ I take little comfort in the proposition that you may some day have to
@ stand for reelection by your $1,000/vote peers.  Once elected, you will
@ hold on to "your" position for life.  And, you will have little interest
@ in redesigning the system to increase the liklihood of a successful
@ challenge.  Few people will relish the prospect of contesting you in
@ public for that "seat."  
@ 
@ "If it is to be done, 'tis best that it be done correctly," (to turn
@ the phrase).
@ Let's have the elections before folk stake out "their" seats at the
@ table rather than after the organization is in concrete.  This
@ Jeffersonian talk of revolution every ten years does not interest me. 
@ The organization should start out in the right direction and be
@ democratic and flexible enough that it will not need sudden uphevals to
@ get it to change course.  
@ 
@ Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
@ Internet Texoma, Inc.
@ The ISP which DIDN'T
@ 
@ 

Eric,

You have a very clear picture of the situation. Any
person with a genuine interest in fairness would
come to the same conclusions.

If it is any comfort, some of the same people that
prevented the domain name Registry Industry from
making progress are involved with ARIN. Their policies
and tactics are well-known.

I doubt if people will be fooled this time around into
thinking that something is being designed for the
good of the net. The NSF was apparently fooled,
but they have one objective which is to run and hide
in shame. They would have accepted any proposal
that allows them to do that.

There are still people on the Internet that want to
cooperate and work toward common solutions
that help everyone now and in the future. Of course,
there are others that are just interested in designing
new ways to "tax" the netizens, money is their
objective.

It will be interesting to see if during the coming
year people will be able to more clearly see which
people are focused on money and which people are
building a net that works for as many people as
possible and promotes inclusive policies.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation