At 03:14 PM 9/18/00 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
>> Although Jim and I had many differences of opinion both on the desired result and
>how
>> to get there I have to agree with his version of history. But Singapore was a long
>time
>> ago. I think what we are doing here is finger-pointing. What good is it to asssign
>> blame now? I dont see it changing anything.
>
>You are quite right. It doesn't change anything.
>
>However (a) Sandow and Lessig were disagreeing, and Lessig was claiming,
>essentially, superior knowledge as a participant. I wrote to support
>Sandow's version of events.
>
>And (b) we have a future. People need to be reminded of what really
>happened, so that history doesn't repeat itself.
>
>One of the lessons of the IFWP for me is: don't trust academics.
I take a more moderate view that to say either "Sondow is right"
or "Lessig is right".
Here's what I recall the chronology to be. Lemme know if you
disagree:
1) IANA said "we've come to agreement with NSI. We won't
be coming to the wrap up meeting".
2) NSI said "if IANA is not going there's no point in us showing up.
3) Berkman said "looks like the wrap up is off"
It's my believe all three parties will agree that's what they said.
So far so good?
Herer's the problem I have with these though:
1) That IANA had come to terms with NSI doesn't mean they should't
show up. There was lots more too this than just IANA vs NSI, like
the structure of newco and so on and so forth. IANA had it's own
plan for newco (the Jones Day "IANA draft") and didn't intend
to have much to do with the IFWP consensus points escept tacitly
recognize a couple of them. To this end, not showing up was
a pefect way to advance their draft and plan.
2) NSI should have shown up anyway. They said they they would
if it was still on, but this fact gets lots in the noise. They
should have said it more loudly and given more of a committment.
3) Berkman should have recognized the importance in the other
parts, not just the NSI/IANA dispute. This made topics like
"the structure of the newco", "stucture of the names council"
completely go away, with the only daft on the table being th
NSI/IANA draft. IANA subsequently changed this fairly drastically
and what was left was the ICANN.
Remember, Ira did say, at the beginning of each IFWP meeting
"It's up to you people to pick a board" You think he was kidding?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719
"The public-private partnership is the essence of fascist economics."
--Dan Sullivan
