At 10:44 AM 5/29/97 -0400, you wrote:

Paul can certainly speak for himself, but I think the issue that most people (myself included) have is that these people refuse to work within the IETF process. If they want to change things and follow the procedure that everyone else has used for years then great, let them try and convince people of the validity of their ideas.

Eugene Kashpureff has made a point to be at every IETF meeting since this Jihad started over a year ago, plus other conferences applicable (such as the Boston governence conference) IETF has always held the position that this is a policy issue and IETF deals with technology. At IETF San Jose, my nuderstanding is they thought Eugene should move forward with .alt in recognition of the work he had done, and take it from there. Along came IAHC and the shit hit the fan.

If, on the other hand, they refuse to work within the well established system and go off into a corner and make grand declarations and try and fracture the "rough consensus" model that has kept the net operating for years, then they are indeed pirates. I would like to point out that going through the IETF process does not mean your ideas will be accepted. More ideas and plans are rejected than are accepted.

If IETF expects to have a role in this, they'd bett at least pretend to be interested. It may be too late now what with governments, lawyers and ad hoc organizations. If they were to moderate this mess and take an active leadership rold, I can think of no better outcome. They would need the willingness to do this and some (poeple) resources to throw at it. Ball in your court. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR