On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 10:47:42AM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 09:31:21AM -0500, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> > > Izumi AIZU wrote:
> > >
> > > > But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much
> > > > the consensus from last year's IFWP process,
> > >
> > > Only in an "aspirational" sense. We have never agreed that this form of
> > > diversity should be imposed if it will frustrate other forms, as is the case
> > > with the current proposal.
> >
> > I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic
> > diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on, and is
> > a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the
> > DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue.
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> I don't recall seeing you at any of the many IFWP meetings I attended, so
> I am curious how you would know what was decided in this regard at those
> meetings. My recollection is akin to Eric's. Geographic diversity was
> indeed discussed and most people found it to be a valuable and necessary
> component of NewCo, however there was indeed no agreement on it trumping
> all other forms of representation.
Hello Patrick.
The reason there were many IFWP meetings all around the world was to
satisfy this requirement. Or have you forgotten:
The new corporation should operate as a private entity for the
benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of
sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS
will depend on input from the broad and growing community of
Internet users. Management structures should reflect the
functional and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users.
Mechanisms should be established to ensure international
participation in decision making.
(From the white paper)
The fact that you and Eric seem oblivious to this is interesting
indeed.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
