On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Ellen Rony wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> > >He therefore informed me that there
> > >was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing
> > >organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage,
> > >though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it
> > >was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into
> > >apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been
> > >compromised.
>
> On Tues, 19 Sep 200, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >
> > This is where Berkman could have provided
> > assistance, but instead, took the easy way
> > out.
Sorry, but I didn't. You have made a mistake in editing the original.
Someone else wrote that.
I don't recall the exact details of the last few days of the IFWP and
so have refrained from assigning any specific blame to Larry Lessig _or_
the Berkman Center.
As I have pointed out in earlier email, in fact I defended Lessig at
the time.
However, I found myself profoundly dissatisfied with the role that the
academics played in the IFWP process. As someone else said, they were
all too much inclined to defer to what they saw as the centers of real
power, governments and large corporations. And then again I think that
they found it impossible to see what was in front of them; they saw
everything in terms of old models.
> While it may seem like we are flogging a dead horse to spend any more time
> to discussing the fateful wrap-up IFWP meeting, it is clearly an issue that
> continues to ignite controversy among those who had such high hopes for the
> IFWP process.
I think that in fact there is a great deal of agreement among those of
us who had high hopes for the IFWP process. Things went badly wrong.
There was no wrap-up meeting.
> Those who fault Berkman for the demise of the wrap-up need to look
> elsewhere. And one must ask, would a wrap-up meeting have changed the
> outcome we have today? IMHO, not likely. Would it have changed how the
> interim ICANN board was chosen. IMHO, not likely. Humans have a fondness
> for closure, but that's not likely to be forthcoming any time soon on
> matters relevant to the curious and debatable birth of ICANN.
Would a wrap-up meeting have changed things? Oh yes, I think that
it would have. But that opportunity has gone now. We had IANA,
which was a very useful tool. Now we have ICANN. <gack> Oh well,
the Internet nevertheless rolls on. ;-)
--
Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
