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.