Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies

[William X. Walsh]

On Sat, 29 May 1999 19:24:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Or is this all a figment, like ICIIU?
>
.
.
.
>You are a charlatan and a knave, and nobody can trust anything you say.  
>You talk about open processes, but there is nothing open about  what 
>you are doing.


Mr Sondow's fictions notwithstanding, this committee had NO business
being elected solely from those that could muster a physical
appearance at this meeting, and surely you can see how such a
provision would benefit only the IAHC/ISOC/PAB/CORE faction.

The real problem is with capture of this constituency by a small
faction with a real political agenda without the support of all those
who would form the real basis for this organization.



--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Fax:(209) 671-7934

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Kent Crispin]

On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:42:40PM +, Kerry  Miller wrote:
> 
> >  It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address 
> >  Supporting Organization in Santiago.  
> 
> Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there 
> mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at-
> large membership? 

Yes.

-- 
Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

[IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting

[Kerry Miller]

Richard,
 
> IN BIG LETTERS.
> 
> This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
> 

I agree, a lot of time and energy has been frittered away, as if we 
have been waiting to be *told we are being listened to. Maybe the 
realization is dawning that while in principle there is no need for 
*any organization of the net, in the 'short term' the more organized 
get the cake, and that nothing whatsover stops this list (or any 
other!) from a) picking an objective, b) formulating a collective, 
collaborative and coherent position on it just as if it had been 
solicited by some interim power-that-be, and then c) following 
through to have a clear on-the-record explanation of why it was 
*either* accepted or rejected.  Failing that (fairly basic, I should 
have thought) process, how can any group learn to deal with the 
ramifications of policy-making, or ever hope to reclaim such power 
for the internet membership as a whole?

kerry

Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies

[Kent Crispin]

On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 04:10:22PM -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Kent Crispin a écrit:
[...]
> It was finally accepted by Don Heath (who seemed to have grown tired
> of Maher/POC/CORE shenanigans) but was rejected by David Maher. The
> only thing Maher would accept was the immediate designation of
> himself as an NCDNHC Names Council member. All other proposals for
> compromise were rejected by him. (Don't forget that he had nominated
> himself for the NC before the Berlin meeting, for which he was
> severely reproved by people on ISOC's own lists). Thus the deadlock
> at the end of the day.

You, as always, are economical with the truth.  Here is the actual 
ISOC/POC supported version of the disputed section:

  Until August 31, the NCDNHC shall be governed by an interim
  committee of five officers to be selected by nominations, to be
  made on or before June 21, and an election to be conducted on June
  25 by email ballots of the Founding Members. 
 
  The primary purpose of this committee is to constitute the initial
  membership, keep accurate and complete records of confirmed
  members, and to generate new membership in the NCDNHC.  Toward that
  end, the Committee will operate a mailing list connecting the
  members.  Beginning August 1, 1999 nominations for the Name Council
  will be opened. 
 
  New members shall apply to the interim officers for membership. 
  the interim officers shall ratify the new members by a majority
  vote.  In case of rejection of an application, the application
  shall be submitted to a majority vote of the existing membership. 
 
  The interim officers shall also draft and submit to the membership
  for approval: a specific procedure for electing the third Names
  Council member, as per Section IV.B.3 above (this must be done
  before August 1); a proposal for a permanent officers structure
  and, if deemed necessary, a credential challenge and dispute
  resolution process.

The version you supported named four individuals (Michael Sondow,
Milton Mueller, Don Heath and Roberto Gaetano) as the initial
officers instead of allowing an election by the existing
organizations which came together to form the constituency. 

That is, you wouldn't play unless you were APPOINTED to the governing
committee, because you knew you could never win an election. 
 
> > Except when you realize that the three groups weren't really three
> > groups -- Mueller at best represented a single organization; Sondow
> > represents an organization with no members.
> 
> Mueller and Kleiman are now the offical designated Internet
> Governance Committee of the ACM, an international non-commercial
> organization of some 80,000 members. As to the ICIIU proposal, it
> was signed onto by twelve non-commercial organizations including Tom
> Lowenhaupt's Communisphere Project (a community networking project
> of Community Board 3 in New York, comprising 125,000 families),
> COMTELCA (the Central American telecommunications and networking
> clearinghouse), and REDI (the Spanish/Latin American cyberlaw
> association), to mention only three of the ICIIU's supporters. To
> say that the ICIIU proposal was only supported by myself (or only by
> the ICIIU) is simply not true.

So, Mr Sondow, you claim you worked with those people who signed up
with you.  Do you have an archive of the mailing list where you
discussed this stuff, so we can all examine your open and transparent
processes?  Could you point us to the web pages of REDI? A cyberlaw
association must surely have a web page, but I have searched
altavista, and don't find anything.  Or could you point us to the web
page of COMTELCA? A "telecommunications and networking clearinghouse"
must surely have a web presence -- could you tell me where it is? At
the very least I would expect such organizations to be referenced via
other web sites, but, nada. 

Or is this all a figment, like ICIIU?

> > I wasn't there, but I was watching, and what you say above is not
> > what was said in the televised report.  The competing proposals were
> > not about Names Council members, but about some sort of membership
> > committee;
> 
> Not a membershop committee, but a committee to oversee an outreach
> to new non-commercial organizational members, to prepare a website
> and mailing list for the constituency, and, yes, to fairly assess
> the legitimacy of applicants, all on a temporary basis until the
> board approves the NCDNHC. What could be fairer? The ACM and the
> ICIIU went so far as to include the ETSI representative, Roberto
> Gaetano, on this ad hoc committee, even though he is a member of
> CORE. What more could we do, except to give ISOC and David Maher the
> NCDNHC on a plate?

Oh right -- much better to give the NCC to a charlatan and a fake.

> > and the two proposals were as follows:
> > 
> > 1) (Sondow/Mueller proposal): The committee would be Sondow, Mueller,
> > Heath, and Gaetano.  No elections; just picked by fiat.
> 
> What fiat? Mueller, Heath, and I were

Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)

[Michael Sondow]

Reading, even answering remote messages is not enough. There must be
a mechanism for online voting, and all representatives, whether of
constituencies, the SOs, or the board itself, must be elected by a
fully democratic process that includes all interested stakeholders,
whether present at the meetings or not. That is the only way to
prevent capture. It is still not too late to put such democratic
remote voting mechanisms into place. But it soon will be, and then
this whole process of creating the NewCo without direct universal
stakeholder suffrage will have been reduced to a grand capture by
vested interests.


Esther Dyson a écrit:
> 
> This is not true. I did indeed mention the opposition to moving fast on
> WIPO, several times, and read several comments, esp. Froomkin's, which was
> one of the primary substantive ones, and noted the disparity in support for
> individual members from outside the room.
> 
> But yes, I (taking responsibility)/we (it's a team effort)  will do it
> better next time.  See next message (later).
> 
> Esther
> 
> At 03:45 PM 28/05/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her
> >to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
> >prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
> >
> >
> >At 09:58 PM 5/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >>Diane C wrote:
> >>
> >>>I forgot to mention that the comments that come in from people listening
> >>>to the
> >>>webcasts are also read to the assembly.
> >>
> >>Only on the first day.  On the second day, Esther promised several times
> >>that she would "get to" the written comments from the webcast, but she
> >>never really did.  There was a passing few notices of the support for the
> >>Individual constituency, but VERY little mention of the serious opposition
> >>to the WIPO proposal provided by the webcast viewers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
> >
> >
> 
> Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
> 
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"

[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Kerry Miller]

>  It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address 
>  Supporting Organization in Santiago.  

Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there 
mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at-
large membership? 

kerry
 

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Richard J. Sexton]

Thats the point - we do not know.

I say we try it, and get some real world data. If it turns out it
works we can delpoy it on a more widespread basis.

I echo PDT's sentiments though... no "cybersquatter" has ever won
in court and the benefits do not outweightthe burdon.


At 07:03 PM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Process issues aside, and assuming we can fix the (serious) glitches
>(timetable, free expression protection), isn't this proposal better than
>the NSI dispute policy.  (I mean just chapter 3, not chapter 4).
>
>On Sat, 29 May 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
>> art the Geneva IFWP meeting?
>> 
>> Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
>> "is a uniform ADR desirable" 
>> 
>> 
>> At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>> >Jeri -
>> >
>> >In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
>> >the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
>> >resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. 
>> >
>> > I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
>> >details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
>> >categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
>> >later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
>> >refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
>> >already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
>> >other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
>> >were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?  
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
>> >everyone: The details are at
>> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
>> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
>> >
>> >
>> >Esther
>> >
>> >   
>> >   
>> >
>> >
>> >  May 28, 1999
>> >
>> >
>> >  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
>> >  Cybersquatters
>> >
>> >  By JERI CLAUSING 
>> >
>> >   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
>> >   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
>> >  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
>> >  popular words as Internet addresses. 
>> >
>> >  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
>> >  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
>> >  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
>> >  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
>> >  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
>> >  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. 
>> >
>> >  The board deferred final adoption of the
>> >  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
>> >  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
>> >  Absent from that group, however, is the
>> >  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
>> >  under the recommendations: individuals and
>> >  non-commercial interests who have already
>> >  registered Internet addresses and could have them
>> >  taken away. 
>> >
>> >  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
>> >  Administration's process for handing administration
>> >  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
>> >  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
>> >  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
>> >  of its worldwide constituents. 
>> >
>> >  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
>> >  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
>> >  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
>> >Thursday's
>> >  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
>> >  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
>> >  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." 
>> >
>> >  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
>> >  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
>> >  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
>> >  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
>> >  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
>> >  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
>> >referred
>> >  to the membership committee without recommendation. 
>> >
>> > 

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press CommuniquÈ on Berlin Meeting Results

[William X. Walsh]

On Sat, 29 May 1999 12:37:05 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The sigh was for the continuing, silly confusions.  One has to do with your 
>confusing correlation with causation -- or otherwise dismissing the import 
>of support from a large number of independent organizations and 
>individuals.  The other has to do with your viewing ISOC as a bogeyman, 
>while entirely ignoring the seriously damaging role NSI has 
>played.  Sighing is what such silliness engenders.

Better a KNOWN evil, than to create a new one without serious
consideration as to how it will be composed and established.

We are not in this for a short term solution.  This is a long term
issue, and making compromises that have serious long term impacts in
the name of a short term gain for CORE (or anyone else for that
matter) to a new TLD now is totally and completely unacceptable.

And don't accuse me of being an NSI apologist, Dave.  I'm an equal
opportunity critic, I dislike both NSI and CORE.  But I'm for a system
that will permit them to compete on an open playing field in the
registry industry with other equally competitive registries, and to
set this up in a fair, just, and sound manner.



--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Fax:(209) 671-7934

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[William X. Walsh]

On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:03:54 -0700, Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>>2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
>
>Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you.  Somewhat 
>out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you 
>-- or any other individual -- had concerns, but that the reporting of the 
>concerns gives the impression that it represents a larger "constituency" 
>with that concern.

But that is just it, Dave.  It DOES represent a much larger
constituency than you or the rest of the CORE supporters want to
admit.

If you look at the online participation, I think it was made
ABUNDANTLY clear that there were a LARGE number of people who share
the concerns Mr Froomkin has put forth.

It is the insistant of your group to ignore those who cannot make a
face to face attendence that backs up your claim that this is not so.

You are attempting to mischaracterize the level of support for his
concerns in an effort to acheive short term goals that are
unacceptable to a vast number of stakeholders.

I have a serious question for you Dave.  Why do you insist on
charactizing these concerns as minimal and trivial when the sheer
volume of concerns shows this to be otherwise?  

I recently watched a thread on a popular interactive "geek" tech news
site  when the WIPO report was released.  By a vast margin, they came
to the same conclusions as those of us who oppose the adoption of the
WIPO guidelines.  As a community they number in the tens of thousands.
They have been instrumental as a community in applying influence on
corporations such as IBM and Proctor and Gamble, and many others, on
similar issues.  Their activist efforts have even coined a new phrase
to describe the effect that their efforts have.  Groups of this size
exist, and share many of the concerns stated.  Would you like them to
make their opinions and comments known to ICANN?  Can ICANN handle the
sheer volume of email and web site traffic such a grassroots effort by
interested stakeholders could generate?  Would THAT convince you there
is OVERWHELMING concerns with the WIPO reports?

What will it take for you to open your eyes and see that there are
stakeholders and participants who are outside the
IAHC/ISOC/gTLD-MoU/PAB/CORE sphere of influence?  You well know these
"groups" act together and usually with one voice.  They may as well be
ONE group.  But they do NOT constitute even a simple majority of the
interested stakeholders.not even close.



--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Fax:(209) 671-7934

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqu» on Berlin Meeting Results

[Gordon Cook]

Glad to see you haven't lapsed from your true believer mind set.  you had
me worried.

>At 02:49 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>what does your sigh mean?
>>
>>your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
>>are going in?
>
>Hardly.  Your direction of believing that a broad range or organizations'
>supporting ISOC's efforts somehow means that ISOC "controls" all those
>organizations hasn't changed and my reaction to it hasn't changed.
>
>The sigh was for the continuing, silly confusions.  One has to do with your
>confusing correlation with causation -- or otherwise dismissing the import
>of support from a large number of independent organizations and
>individuals.  The other has to do with your viewing ISOC as a bogeyman,
>while entirely ignoring the seriously damaging role NSI has
>played.  Sighing is what such silliness engenders.
>
>> >At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>> >>In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
>> >>interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
>> >>that the word choice giving the constituencies power was quite
>>intentional.
>> >
>> >
>> >yup.  ISOC controls all the ISPs and Trademark groups...
>> >
>> >sigh.
>
>
>d/
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive 
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 


The COOK Report on Internet  | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

Process issues aside, and assuming we can fix the (serious) glitches
(timetable, free expression protection), isn't this proposal better than
the NSI dispute policy.  (I mean just chapter 3, not chapter 4).

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
> art the Geneva IFWP meeting?
> 
> Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
> "is a uniform ADR desirable" 
> 
> 
> At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
> >Jeri -
> >
> >In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
> >the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
> >resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. 
> >
> > I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
> >details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
> >categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
> >later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
> >refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
> >already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
> >other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
> >were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?  
> >
> >Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
> >everyone: The details are at
> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
> >
> >
> >Esther
> >
> >   
> >   
> >
> >
> >  May 28, 1999
> >
> >
> >  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
> >  Cybersquatters
> >
> >  By JERI CLAUSING 
> >
> >   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
> >   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
> >  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
> >  popular words as Internet addresses. 
> >
> >  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
> >  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
> >  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
> >  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
> >  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
> >  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. 
> >
> >  The board deferred final adoption of the
> >  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
> >  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
> >  Absent from that group, however, is the
> >  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
> >  under the recommendations: individuals and
> >  non-commercial interests who have already
> >  registered Internet addresses and could have them
> >  taken away. 
> >
> >  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
> >  Administration's process for handing administration
> >  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
> >  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
> >  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
> >  of its worldwide constituents. 
> >
> >  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
> >  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
> >  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
> >Thursday's
> >  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
> >  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
> >  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." 
> >
> >  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
> >  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
> >  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
> >  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
> >  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
> >  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
> >referred
> >  to the membership committee without recommendation. 
> >
> >  Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet. 
> >
> >  "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
> >  organization for review? " he asked. 
> >
> >  The unanimous endorsement of the principles by ICANN's board came
> >  during an eight-hour closed board meeting in Berlin, where the board
> >  also finalized

Re: [IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

  TRUE!  One small adjustment to your statement.  THE ICANN IS
ATTEMPTING TO DO THE GLOSSING OVER!

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> IN BIG LETTERS.
>
> This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.
>
> At 05:36 PM 5/29/99 +, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever
> >ICANN meets -- verbatim.
> >
> >
> >>   The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
> >> planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting

[Richard J. Sexton]

IN BIG LETTERS.

This stuff is too important to be glossed over... and thats what we're doing.


At 05:36 PM 5/29/99 +, you wrote:
>
>
>I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever 
>ICANN meets -- verbatim.
>
>
>>   The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
>> planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
>> 
>
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Re: [IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting

[Jeff Williams]

Kerry and all,

  Well thank you Kerry for the cudo!  >;)  None the less the ICANN Interim
Boards blatant inability to do proper planning amongst keeping their
board meetings closed, is testament to their incompatancy, most especially
the three "Ring leaders", sometimes know as the "Terrible Trio",
Esther, Mike and Joe.  Kinda sounds like Larry Moe and Curly from the
three stooges fame, doesn't it?  

Kerry Miller wrote:

> I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever
> ICANN meets -- verbatim.
>
> >   The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
> > planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

[IFWP] Re: Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting

[Kerry Miller]

I think this statement should be printed up and posted whenever 
ICANN meets -- verbatim.


>   The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
> planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.
> 

Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies

[Michael Sondow]

Kent Crispin a écrit:

> Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >
> > I watched Sondow and Mueller make all sorts of compromises I
> > didn't see Heath make any. I talked to him about it and
> > was told "my constituents won't accept this". I asked how
> > he knew this without asking them or explaining the situation.

We could all have used that same argument. The ICIIU proposal was
not written by me alone, but in collaboration with the ten ICIIU
supporters, all legitimate non-commercial organizations. I took the
risk of negotiating a compromise with the ACM reps without
consulting the ICIIU's supporters. Heath could have done the same.

> > In the end the dispute was about one paraghraph - how to
> > elect the names council memebrs.

No, not how to elect the NC representatives, but how to arrange an
interim group of leaders to see the process through and find a
compromise solution.

> > Heath wanted the 30 orgs
> > he signed up to elect them

Not exactly. Heath and Maher (who should not have been there at all,
since he's a trademark lawyer for IBM and can never represent
non-commercial interests) wanted to elect NC members immediately
because ISOC had the longer list of supporting organizations (a
result of their superior funding, their pretended NCDNHC mailing
list, and their having tricked many people into believing that the
ISOC was already, in the pre-Berlin period, the NCDNHC). They
realized that they might be able to win all three seats if voting
was done immediately.

> > many other peple pointed out
> > one names council member from each of the 3 groups invoilved
> > in this seemed reasonable.

What Mueller, Kleiman, I, and the other reasonable people there
pointed out was that the constituency was not yet formed, since the
majority of interested non-commercial organizations weren't yet
represented in it. We asked that voting for NC seats be postponed
until the constituency's base was broadened to reflect a more fair
membership. We never asked that each of the three proposal groups be
given a seat, even if this was a far fairer distribution than that
proposed by ISOC. The ACM compromise called for a temporary council,
made up of one ACM rep, one ICIIU rep, one ISOC rep, plus Roberto
Gaetano (a CORE member but legitimately there as a representative of
ETSI) as a balancer between ACM/ICIIU and ISOC/CORE. This seemed
like the best and fairest way to keep the process open and ongoing.
It was finally accepted by Don Heath (who seemed to have grown tired
of Maher/POC/CORE shenanigans) but was rejected by David Maher. The
only thing Maher would accept was the immediate designation of
himself as an NCDNHC Names Council member. All other proposals for
compromise were rejected by him. (Don't forget that he had nominated
himself for the NC before the Berlin meeting, for which he was
severely reproved by people on ISOC's own lists). Thus the deadlock
at the end of the day.

> Except when you realize that the three groups weren't really three
> groups -- Mueller at best represented a single organization; Sondow
> represents an organization with no members.

Mueller and Kleiman are now the offical designated Internet
Governance Committee of the ACM, an international non-commercial
organization of some 80,000 members. As to the ICIIU proposal, it
was signed onto by twelve non-commercial organizations including Tom
Lowenhaupt's Communisphere Project (a community networking project
of Community Board 3 in New York, comprising 125,000 families),
COMTELCA (the Central American telecommunications and networking
clearinghouse), and REDI (the Spanish/Latin American cyberlaw
association), to mention only three of the ICIIU's supporters. To
say that the ICIIU proposal was only supported by myself (or only by
the ICIIU) is simply not true.

> I wasn't there, but I was watching, and what you say above is not
> what was said in the televised report.  The competing proposals were
> not about Names Council members, but about some sort of membership
> committee;

Not a membershop committee, but a committee to oversee an outreach
to new non-commercial organizational members, to prepare a website
and mailing list for the constituency, and, yes, to fairly assess
the legitimacy of applicants, all on a temporary basis until the
board approves the NCDNHC. What could be fairer? The ACM and the
ICIIU went so far as to include the ETSI representative, Roberto
Gaetano, on this ad hoc committee, even though he is a member of
CORE. What more could we do, except to give ISOC and David Maher the
NCDNHC on a plate?

> and the two proposals were as follows:
> 
> 1) (Sondow/Mueller proposal): The committee would be Sondow, Mueller,
> Heath, and Gaetano.  No elections; just picked by fiat.

What fiat? Mueller, Heath, and I were the submitters of the three
constituency proposals. In every other constituency, those who wrote
the proposals negotiated the compromise guidelines submitted to the
board. By what logic would the organizers of the NCDNHC be denied

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Dave Crocker]

At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to

Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you.  Somewhat 
out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you 
-- or any other individual -- had concerns, but that the reporting of the 
concerns gives the impression that it represents a larger "constituency" 
with that concern.

Given the scarce real-estate of such an article, who is quoted -- and how 
-- is a very, very important choice for the reporter.

There is always someone, somewhere with an objection, no matter the 
topic.  Hence, the context of the objection is frankly more important than 
the details of it.  The article provided no such context.  Unfortunately, 
there is nothing all that distinctive about this reportorial failure, 
either for this topic or much other reporting.

>There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about who loses/wins
>from delay.  Before we even address those, though, lawyers like me will
>ask you if you think you are doing a short term thing or trying to build
>for the long term.  If you are thinking long term then you need to worry

Some of us have developed a rather interesting base of experience and it 
has taught us that there is no long-term, except with respect to 
short-term.  Our experience comes from IETF standards and from networking 
startups.  For any complex task, waiting to solve the "long-term" is a good 
way to ensure that nothing ever gets done, because there will never be a 
real and thorough understanding of the long term.  That is not a vote for 
precipitous decision-making, but for pushing to make decision quickly in 
order to ensure forward progress.  (For most of those seeking delay, this 
topic is -- requently literally -- purely academic.  Hence, they feel no 
need to worry about making forward progress.)

Rather, the real and effective way to pursue the long-term is with a series 
of near-term steps, making mid-course corrections as needed.  This is from 
pragmatic experience.  Some have attempted to dismiss that lesson, rather 
condescendingly, claiming that it might apply to a "homogeneous" "techie" 
environment, but I haven't noted those speakers demonstrating any 
alternative track record of success.  (Typically, they also have no 
first-hand knowledge about the real degree of diversity or expertise within 
those "homogeneous" and "technie" environments.)

Hence, they just serve to push for more delay.

>about getting process right, not just outcomes.  It seems to me that the
>current ICANN resolution on WIPO gets the substance right enough (if not
>quite like how I might have ideally wanted it).  I am not persuaded it
>gets the process right, given the kerfuffle over the DNSOs, and more

I've invested quite a lot in the IETF process, so I do not dismiss such 
concerns lightly, but I've also noticed that process concerns can produce 
the wrong outcome, such as releasing guilty felons.  it is far better to 
focus on the major content and treat the process as an adjunct, absence 
gross violations.  Given the visibility of this activity, gross violations 
will get gross and broad response, not just from a tiny band of vocal folk, 
but truly "from the community".

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive 
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Ellen Rony]

Jeri Clausing of the New York Times wrote:

> perhaps this is another argument for open meetings?  : )

I applaud you, Jeri, for supporting the call for open meetings.

As one who tried to participate remotely in the pre-meeting forum, I was
distressed that messages regarding WIPO that focused on process (e.g.,
referring the recommendations to a fully formed DNSO) were shunted away in
deference to those which were considered "substantive, i.e.,commented on
specifics such as dispute resolution, famous marks.

To paraphrase the tagline of the 1992 Democratic presidential campaign,
It IS the process!

If comments as to process were considered unsubstantive, it appears that
the board had *pre-determined* that it was going to endorse some of the
WIPO recommendations.

I call for the interim, unelected ICANN board of directors to put *OPEN
BOARD MEETINGS* as the FIRST agenda item of the Santiago meeting.
Heretofore, we have seen NO public discussion among the nine board members
about this issue, only the remarks of Esther and Mike Roberts.

If the remaining seven good people of the ICANN BOD have any justification
for keeping their decisionmaking discussions secret, they should at least
have the courage and integrity to put those views forth.  They have
enormous control over the administration of a communications medium which
is used by millions, and it is completely preposterous that they do not
engage publicly in this important debate.  Where are these people?  Who are
these people?  Why should we acquiesce to their  desire to remain in the
shadows?  If they are unwilling to participate in an open dialogue, then I
call for their resignation so that those who remain can focus publicly on
the primary responsibility of ICANN's interim board, which is to create a
representative structure, not to dispense policy from on high.


Ellen Rony   Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
 ^..^ )6 =
ISBN 0879305150  (oo) -^--   +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED]W   W Tiburon, CA
   Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press CommuniquÈ on Berlin Meeting Results

[Dave Crocker]

At 02:49 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>what does your sigh mean?
>
>your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
>are going in?

Hardly.  Your direction of believing that a broad range or organizations' 
supporting ISOC's efforts somehow means that ISOC "controls" all those 
organizations hasn't changed and my reaction to it hasn't changed.

The sigh was for the continuing, silly confusions.  One has to do with your 
confusing correlation with causation -- or otherwise dismissing the import 
of support from a large number of independent organizations and 
individuals.  The other has to do with your viewing ISOC as a bogeyman, 
while entirely ignoring the seriously damaging role NSI has 
played.  Sighing is what such silliness engenders.

> >At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >>In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
> >>interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
> >>that the word choice giving the constituencies power was quite intentional.
> >
> >
> >yup.  ISOC controls all the ISPs and Trademark groups...
> >
> >sigh.


d/


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive 
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

RE: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)

[Richard J. Sexton]

At 09:55 AM 5/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Gene,
>
>The Berlin meeting was the first time that the
>comments/scribing/webcast/meeting archive tools really reached critical
>mass.  It had been available in Singapore and Cambridge, too, but novelty
>and time zones may have made it less accessible to remote listeners, and we
>only had scribing and audiocasting (I think) down at IFWP Geneva last
>summer.  I didn't detect any aversion to remote comments by the chair in
>Berlin--certainly not based on the content of the messages--just a sense of
>overload as in-room and extra-room comments piled up on each agenda item.

Yeah, it worked very well on the first day but the remote participants
sort got the shot end of the time straw on the second day. We need
to take them seriously and *respond* to their questions and comments.

>I'd love to see the tools brought to "3.0" through brainstorming on this
>list, and then integrated more tightly with the Santiago meeting
>proceedings.  ...JZ

I can't think what I'd add at this juncture. Do you have any ideas ?

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Richard J. Sexton]

Have we fogotten that it was a consensus item that a unifom ADR is not desirable
art the Geneva IFWP meeting?

Didd anybody else notice that nobody ever asked the question this time round
"is a uniform ADR desirable" 


At 10:32 AM 5/29/99 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
>Jeri -
>
>In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
>the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
>resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. 
>
> I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
>details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
>categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
>later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
>refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
>already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
>other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
>were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?  
>
>Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
>everyone: The details are at
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
>
>
>Esther
>
>   
>   
>
>
>  May 28, 1999
>
>
>  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
>  Cybersquatters
>
>  By JERI CLAUSING 
>
>   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
>   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
>  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
>  popular words as Internet addresses. 
>
>  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
>  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
>  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
>  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
>  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
>  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. 
>
>  The board deferred final adoption of the
>  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
>  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
>  Absent from that group, however, is the
>  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
>  under the recommendations: individuals and
>  non-commercial interests who have already
>  registered Internet addresses and could have them
>  taken away. 
>
>  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
>  Administration's process for handing administration
>  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
>  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
>  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
>  of its worldwide constituents. 
>
>  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
>  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
>  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
>Thursday's
>  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
>  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
>  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." 
>
>  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
>  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
>  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
>  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
>  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
>  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
>referred
>  to the membership committee without recommendation. 
>
>  Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet. 
>
>  "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
>  organization for review? " he asked. 
>
>  The unanimous endorsement of the principles by ICANN's board came
>  during an eight-hour closed board meeting in Berlin, where the board
>  also finalized a $5.9 million budget that will be financed in part
>by a $1 a
>  year fee on every domain name registered and on fees and dues from
>  companies ICANN approves to begin competing with Network
>  Solutions. 
>
>  In addition, the board approved the structure of two of three
>supporting
>  groups that will make up the nonprofit corporation's membership. 
>
>  One of those three is the Domain Name S

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

Two points:

1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report
"in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very
controversial parts of it.  For those who object to the entire proposal
regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement
"in principle" would be pretty upsetting.  It not being there matters.

2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to
mean, but for the record I claim a constituency of one -- myself -- and am
more than content for my statements to stand or fall on the power or
idiocy of my ideas.  This is why I write them out in some detail. (c.f.
http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf ).

There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about who loses/wins
from delay.  Before we even address those, though, lawyers like me will
ask you if you think you are doing a short term thing or trying to build
for the long term.  If you are thinking long term then you need to worry
about getting process right, not just outcomes.  It seems to me that the
current ICANN resolution on WIPO gets the substance right enough (if not
quite like how I might have ideally wanted it).  I am not persuaded it
gets the process right, given the kerfuffle over the DNSOs, and more
importantly, the issue of whether this Board ought to be doing substance
or standing up for the principle that it's up to the first real Board to
to do that.  Of course, if you are focused on the short-term bottom line,
this is not going to be an appealing argument...

On Sat, 29 May 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
> >the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the 
> >report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
> >several times what you had done.
> 
> Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in 
> detail".
> 
> In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as 
> being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are 
> reservations about the details.
> 
> An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of 
> recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds 
> vastly more definitive, formal  and final than the much-later text "The 
> board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...".
> 
> Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong 
> meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial 
> support from formal passage.
> 
> But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that 
> Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of 
> NSI.  But who gets quoted?
> 
> For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article?
> 
> As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about 
> compromise.
> 
> d/
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive 
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 
> 
> 

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |Professor of Law|   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
-->   It's hot here.   <-- 

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press CommuniquÈ on Berlin Meeting Results

[Gordon Cook]

what does your sigh mean?

your surely are not having any second thoughts about the direction things
are going in?



>At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>>In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
>>interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
>>that the word choice giving the constituiencies power was quite intentional.
>
>
>yup.  ISOC controls all the ISPs and Trademark groups...
>
>sigh.
>
>d/
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive 
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 


The COOK Report on Internet  | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Jeff Williams]

Jeri and all,

  Good for you Jeri!  >;)  You shouldn't take the nonsense that Esther
Dyson continually put out.  She is continually being disingenuous.  This
exchange on this thread is just one of many many examples.  And yes
you should report BOTH sides as any good journalist should

Jeri Clausing wrote:

> Esther,
>
> I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to 
>reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
> the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in 
>principle. And you asked someone else in the room
> several times what you had done.
>
> The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, 
>please let me know so I can write a correction.
>
> And the point my story makes is that parts of this report  that remain very 
>controversial were referred and action is requested on
> those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very 
>upset about that and it is my job to report both
> sides.
>
> Jeri
>
> Jeri
> -Original Message-
> From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jeri Clausing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM
> Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
>
> >No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
> >open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the
> >distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our
> >different treatment of each.
> >
> >Esther
> >
> >At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
> >>
> >>>YUP IT IS!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
> >argument for open meetings?  : )
> >>>
> >>>jeri
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> >chairman, EDventure Holdings
> >interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >1 (212) 924-8800
> >1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> >104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> >New York, NY 10011 USA
> >http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
> >
> >High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> >PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> >Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Dave Crocker]

At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote:
>the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the 
>report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room
>several times what you had done.

Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in 
detail".

In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as 
being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are 
reservations about the details.

An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of 
recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds 
vastly more definitive, formal  and final than the much-later text "The 
board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...".

Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong 
meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial 
support from formal passage.

But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that 
Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of 
NSI.  But who gets quoted?

For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article?

As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about 
compromise.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive 
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqué on Berlin Meeting Results

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:32 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
>interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
>that the word choice giving the constituiencies power was quite intentional.


yup.  ISOC controls all the ISPs and Trademark groups...

sigh.

d/


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting   Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive 
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 

[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Jeri Clausing]

Esther,

I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to 
reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in 
principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you had done.

The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, 
please let me know so I can write a correction.

And the point my story makes is that parts of this report  that remain very 
controversial were referred and action is requested on
those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very upset 
about that and it is my job to report both
sides.


Jeri


-Original Message-
From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeri Clausing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: feedback on NYT article


>No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
>open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the
>distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our
>different treatment of each.
>
>Esther
>
>At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
>>
>>>YUP IT IS!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
>argument for open meetings?  : )
>>>
>>>jeri
>>
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
>
>

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Jeri Clausing]

Esther,

I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to 
reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over
the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in 
principle. And you asked someone else in the room
several times what you had done.

The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, 
please let me know so I can write a correction.

And the point my story makes is that parts of this report  that remain very 
controversial were referred and action is requested on
those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very upset 
about that and it is my job to report both
sides.


Jeri



Jeri
-Original Message-
From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeri Clausing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM
Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article


>No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
>open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the
>distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our
>different treatment of each.
>
>Esther
>
>At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
>>
>>>YUP IT IS!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
>argument for open meetings?  : )
>>>
>>>jeri
>>
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
>
>

[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Esther Dyson]

No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the
open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the
distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our
different treatment of each.

Esther

At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote:
>
>>YUP IT IS!!!
>
>
>
>>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another
argument for open meetings?  : )
>>
>>jeri
>
>


Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org

High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona 
Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" 

Re: [IFWP] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqué on Berlin MeetingResults

[Jeff Williams]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > ICANN's press release read:
> > >The constituencies, which will elect the
> > >Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
> > >Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
> >
> > For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
> > place the General Assembly at its "core."
>
> Yes.  And this misunderstanding is behind the misguided idea of an
> "Individual Constituency", as well.

  Misguided?  In who's opinion. What support do you quantitatively have
for this sort of statement Kent (AKA Kent "The crispy brain" Crispin')
Hu?  None, is the correct answer...

>
>
> > While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial
> > percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated
> > individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the
> > General Assembly.
>
> Indeed.  There is an unavoidable "catch all" character to individual
> domain name holders -- they cross all categories, and as such it is
> hard to imagine a constituency that meaningfully deals with that
> diversity.

  How utterly silly and so terribly incorrect on it's face.  BULLHOCKY Kent!

> On the other hand, there are many individuals who may
> not have a personally registered domain who are very interested in
> domain name issues -- do we need a constituency for them, as well?

  The short answer is, Why not!

>
>
> The inspiration for the General Assembly was the IETF -- where
> *any interested individual* can participate.  People are hung up on
> representation in the Names Council.

  Certainly they are and hopefully remain so.  People should be very interested

on representation in the Names Council, it is central to DNS issues.

>
>
> > Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by
> > the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with
> > the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.
>
> Yep.

  Well this is huge change of position for you Kent!

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Jeff Williams]

Jeri and all,

  If you remember some time ago I attempted to enlighten you in regards
to Esther Dyson and the ICANN INterim Board.  This confusion is just
another example of her many attempts to expunge herself and the ICANN in a manner that 
is somewhat less than honest and accurate but in
a light that is favorable
to what the wish for everyone to believe.

  The plot thickens or sickens, so to speak, eh?

Jeri Clausing wrote:

> esther,
>
> in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the 
>report. maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
> my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being 
>referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
> no written info, i kept the story general and emphasized that the report was open 
>for change. unfortunately, michael froomkin
> commented on bad info i gave him,  believing that the principles of the famous marks 
>section were among the principles  after we saw
> the written release, i went back and put in comments in clearer  context.
>
> my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for 
>open meetings?  : )
>
> jeri
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dave Farber 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:32 AM
> Subject: feedback on NYT article
>
> >Jeri -
> >
> >In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
> >the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
> >resolution, but not the specific recomemendations.
> >
> > I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
> >details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
> >categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
> >later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
> >refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
> >already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
> >other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
> >were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?
> >
> >Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
> >everyone: The details are at
> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
> >http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
> >
> >
> >Esther
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  May 28, 1999
> >
> >
> >  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
> >  Cybersquatters
> >
> >  By JERI CLAUSING
> >
> >   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
> >   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
> >  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
> >  popular words as Internet addresses.
> >
> >  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
> >  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
> >  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
> >  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
> >  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
> >  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment.
> >
> >  The board deferred final adoption of the
> >  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
> >  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
> >  Absent from that group, however, is the
> >  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
> >  under the recommendations: individuals and
> >  non-commercial interests who have already
> >  registered Internet addresses and could have them
> >  taken away.
> >
> >  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
> >  Administration's process for handing administration
> >  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
> >  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
> >  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
> >  of its worldwide constituents.
> >
> >  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
> >  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
> >  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
> >Thursday's
> >  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
> >  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
> >  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up."
> >
> >  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
> >  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
> >

Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqué on Berlin Meeting Results

[Gordon Cook]

In view of the fact that five of the six constituencies are controlled by
interests firmly in the pockets of the ISOC/ICANN church, I would suggest
that the word choice giving the constituiencies power was quite intentional.



>ICANN's press release read:
>>The constituencies, which will elect the
>>Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
>>Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
>
>For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to
>place the General Assembly at its "core."
>
>While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial
>percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated
>individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the
>General Assembly.
>
>Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by
>the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with
>the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.
>
>I realize that this was just a press release, but I wanted to point out
>what I thought was a mistake in word choice.
>
> -- Bret


The COOK Report on Internet  | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com

[IFWP] Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqué on Berlin Meeting Results

[Kent Crispin]

On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 11:41:30AM -0400, Bret Fausett wrote:
> ICANN's press release read:
> >The constituencies, which will elect the
> >Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
> >Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.
> 
> For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to 
> place the General Assembly at its "core." 

Yes.  And this misunderstanding is behind the misguided idea of an
"Individual Constituency", as well. 

> While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial 
> percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated 
> individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the 
> General Assembly.

Indeed.  There is an unavoidable "catch all" character to individual 
domain name holders -- they cross all categories, and as such it is 
hard to imagine a constituency that meaningfully deals with that 
diversity.  On the other hand, there are many individuals who may 
not have a personally registered domain who are very interested in 
domain name issues -- do we need a constituency for them, as well?

The inspiration for the General Assembly was the IETF -- where 
*any interested individual* can participate.  People are hung up on 
representation in the Names Council.

> Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by 
> the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with 
> the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.

Yep.

-- 
Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Bret A. Fausett]

Jeri Clausing wrote:
>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another 
>argument for open meetings?  : )

Bingo. 

   -- Bret

[IFWP] Re: ICANN Press Communiqué on Berlin Meeting Results

[Bret A. Fausett]

ICANN's press release read:
>The constituencies, which will elect the
>Names Council to act as the governing body of the Domain Name Supporting
>Organisation (DNSO), are the core of the DNSO.

For the record, I think a better way of understanding the DNSO is to 
place the General Assembly at its "core." 

While the constituencies collectively may comprise a substantial 
percentage of the General Assembly, there are many unaffiliated 
individuals and groups that may only find a place to participate in the 
General Assembly.

Whether a substantive policy proposal should be adopted is measured by 
the degree of consensus in the General Assembly. This is in keeping with 
the bottom-up decision-making style that should characterize the DNSO.

I realize that this was just a press release, but I wanted to point out 
what I thought was a mistake in word choice.

 -- Bret

[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Dave Farber]

>YUP IT IS!!!



>my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for 
>open meetings?  : )
>
>jeri

[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article

[Jeri Clausing]

esther,

in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report. 
maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being 
referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
no written info, i kept the story general and emphasized that the report was open for 
change. unfortunately, michael froomkin
commented on bad info i gave him,  believing that the principles of the famous marks 
section were among the principles  after we saw
the written release, i went back and put in comments in clearer  context.

my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for 
open meetings?  : )

jeri

-Original Message-
From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dave Farber 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:32 AM
Subject: feedback on NYT article


>Jeri -
>
>In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
>the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
>resolution, but not the specific recomemendations.
>
> I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
>details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
>categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
>later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
>refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
>already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
>other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
>were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?
>
>Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
>everyone: The details are at
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
>
>
>Esther
>
>
>
>
>
>  May 28, 1999
>
>
>  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
>  Cybersquatters
>
>  By JERI CLAUSING
>
>   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
>   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
>  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
>  popular words as Internet addresses.
>
>  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
>  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
>  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
>  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
>  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
>  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment.
>
>  The board deferred final adoption of the
>  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
>  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
>  Absent from that group, however, is the
>  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
>  under the recommendations: individuals and
>  non-commercial interests who have already
>  registered Internet addresses and could have them
>  taken away.
>
>  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
>  Administration's process for handing administration
>  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
>  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
>  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
>  of its worldwide constituents.
>
>  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
>  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
>  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
>Thursday's
>  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
>  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
>  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up."
>
>  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
>  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
>  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
>  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
>  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
>  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
>referred
>  to the membership committee without recommendation.
>
>  Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet.
>
>  "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
>  organization for review? " he asked.
>
>  The unanimous end

Re: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Jeri Clausing]

esther,

in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report. 
maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or
my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being 
referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had
no written info, i kept the story general and emphasized that the report was open for 
change. unfortunately, michael froomkin
commented on bad info i gave him,  believing that the principles of the famous marks 
section were among the principles  after we saw
the written release, i went back and put in comments in clearer  context.

my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for 
open meetings?  : )

jeri

-Original Message-
From: Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dave Farber 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:37 AM
Subject: [IFWP] feedback on NYT article


>Jeri -
>
>In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
>the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
>resolution, but not the specific recomemendations.
>
> I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
>details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
>categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
>later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
>refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
>already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
>other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
>were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?
>
>Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
>everyone: The details are at
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
>http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)
>
>
>Esther
>
>
>
>
>
>  May 28, 1999
>
>
>  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
>  Cybersquatters
>
>  By JERI CLAUSING
>
>   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
>   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
>  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
>  popular words as Internet addresses.
>
>  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
>  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
>  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
>  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
>  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
>  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment.
>
>  The board deferred final adoption of the
>  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
>  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
>  Absent from that group, however, is the
>  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
>  under the recommendations: individuals and
>  non-commercial interests who have already
>  registered Internet addresses and could have them
>  taken away.
>
>  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
>  Administration's process for handing administration
>  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
>  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
>  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
>  of its worldwide constituents.
>
>  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
>  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
>  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
>Thursday's
>  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
>  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
>  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up."
>
>  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
>  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
>  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
>  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
>  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
>  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
>referred
>  to the membership committee without recommendation.
>
>  Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet.
>
>  "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
>  organization for review? " he asked.
>
>  The unanim

[IFWP] feedback on NYT article

[Esther Dyson]

Jeri -

In our conversation on Thursday, I said  to you that we had endorsed many of
the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute
resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. 

 I  suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for
details, which include  separate approaches to three separate
categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline
later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to,
refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto
already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In
other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details
were better, the lede was seriously misleading.  What more can I say?  

Unfortunately, these seemingly  subtle distinctions are important.  (For
everyone: The details are at
http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and
http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.)


Esther

   
   


  May 28, 1999


  Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit
  Cybersquatters

  By JERI CLAUSING 

   he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday
   endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking
  down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other
  popular words as Internet addresses. 

  Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet
  Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the
  board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the
  recommendations, which were issued last month by the World
  Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United
  Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. 

  The board deferred final adoption of the
  recommendations until they can be reviewed by
  one of ICANN's newly formed member groups.
  Absent from that group, however, is the
  constituency that critics say have the most to lose
  under the recommendations: individuals and
  non-commercial interests who have already
  registered Internet addresses and could have them
  taken away. 

  Like everything surrounding the Clinton
  Administration's process for handing administration
  of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was
  immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to
  be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead
  of its worldwide constituents. 

  Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which
  has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the
  top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after
Thursday's
  action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body
  which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins
  making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." 

  A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised
  WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its
  major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement
  applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other
  chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system
  for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was
referred
  to the membership committee without recommendation. 

  Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet. 

  "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting
  organization for review? " he asked. 

  The unanimous endorsement of the principles by ICANN's board came
  during an eight-hour closed board meeting in Berlin, where the board
  also finalized a $5.9 million budget that will be financed in part
by a $1 a
  year fee on every domain name registered and on fees and dues from
  companies ICANN approves to begin competing with Network
  Solutions. 

  In addition, the board approved the structure of two of three
supporting
  groups that will make up the nonprofit corporation's membership. 

  One of those three is the Domain Name Supporting Organization
  (DNSO), which has been charged with making recommendations to
  ICANN on how and when to add new top-level domains like .com to
  the global network. 

  Its first order of business, however, is to carry out rules
governing the
  registration of domain names. Specifically, ICANN asked the new group
 

Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies

[Kent Crispin]

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:29:03PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >> The current DNSO is now mainly a trade organization.
> >
> >Thank Milton and Michael.  
> 
> I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest so I'll state
> my observations once and don't care to discuss it. I was in attendance
> for the NC meeting, as was Esteher and John Klemsin. Ask them if
> my observation is correct.
> 
> Michael Sondow had the first NC propoasl. The ISOC/Heath proopsal
> was second and had 30 ISOC/IAHC friendly organizations as signatories.
> 
> The Mueller/ACM proposal was supposed to be a compromise.
> 
> I watched Sondow and Mueller make all sorts of compromises I
> didn't see Heath make any. I talked to him about it and
> was told "my constituents won't accept this". I asked how
> he knew this without asking them or explaining the situation.
> 
> In the end the dispute was about one paraghraph - how to 
> elect the names council memebrs. Heath wanted the 30 orgs
> he signed up to elect them, many other peple pointed out
> one names council member from each of the 3 groups invoilved
> in this seemed reasonable.

Except when you realize that the three groups weren't really three 
groups -- Mueller at best represented a single organization; Sondow 
represents an organization with no members.

I wasn't there, but I was watching, and what you say above is not
what was said in the televised report.  The competing proposals were 
not about Names Council members, but about some sort of membership 
committee; and the two proposals were as follows:

1) (Sondow/Mueller proposal): The committee would be Sondow, Mueller,
Heath, and Gaetano.  No elections; just picked by fiat.

2) (The Heath proposal): The committee would be elected by the 
founding members of the NCC.

-- 
Kent Crispin   "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   lonesome." -- Mark Twain

RE: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)

[Jonathan Zittrain]

Gene,

The Berlin meeting was the first time that the
comments/scribing/webcast/meeting archive tools really reached critical
mass.  It had been available in Singapore and Cambridge, too, but novelty
and time zones may have made it less accessible to remote listeners, and we
only had scribing and audiocasting (I think) down at IFWP Geneva last
summer.  I didn't detect any aversion to remote comments by the chair in
Berlin--certainly not based on the content of the messages--just a sense of
overload as in-room and extra-room comments piled up on each agenda item.

I'd love to see the tools brought to "3.0" through brainstorming on this
list, and then integrated more tightly with the Santiago meeting
proceedings.  ...JZ

At 07:46 PM 5/28/99 , Gene Marsh wrote: 

My thanks to the Berkman folks as well.  The mismamangement of the 
tool at the Berlin end (by ICANN) has nothing to do with the potential 
value they brought to the table. 

Bravo, very well done. 

Gene Marsh 


Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[IFWP] Re: Info requested on DNSO trademark group

[Jonathan Zittrain]

Russ,

I poked around the ICANN site and found the pre-Berlin IP proposals
(including email address and contact info) at
.

A video archive of the constituency group presentations at the open meeting
is at
 (I found it off
), and the
scribes' notes of the presentation (fairly detailed) are at
.

The scribes' notes from the IP constituency presentation to the DNSO
general assembly the previous day are within
.  The
video archive is at
.  ...JZ

At 09:21 AM 5/29/99 , Russ Smith wrote:
>I have been searching for more than an hour without success to find
>information on the trademark and intellectual property group of the DNSO.
>At the Berlin meeting the representative of this group said information and
>documents has been posted.  However, I am unable to find these documents at
>the ICANN web site.

Re: [IFWP] Berlin Mood, today 28 May

[Richard J. Sexton]

>THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
>and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now.  As I said to Joop,
>sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
>preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
>earlier today.  We are not trying to "fob you off" with this argument; we
>are trying to figre out how to achieve the proper balance,

7 constituencies, 6 of them are commercial. The department of commerce
set this thing in motion. H...

Does anybody have any quantative data on what percent of the net
is commercial vs. non-commercial ?




--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Re: [IFWP] use of domain name, and infringement

[Richard J. Sexton]

>>>and undergoing a similar registry-registrar bifurcation that was
>>>specified last September.  It might be useful to hear a little
>>>about the implementation and competition progress and compare with
>>>COM, ORG, and NET.

>>All the decisions are made by the .CA name holders as
>>an autonomous collective.

>"Autonomous collective" -- now there's a pregnant phrase!  This bunch
>seems to be one of such, but yet seems not to be able to decide anything
>fixed. Is that because its hands are tied by the ICANNs and NSIs of the
>world? In any case, some skinny on the CA mechanism would be of
>great interest.

See www.canarie.ca. It's linked from there somewhere. I have nothing
to do with .ca (other than having having written the whois server -
out of sheer frustration)

I don't think it's that we aren't able to do anything - not at all,
I think it's just that we wait until we've all come to more or less
the same conclusion. While ICANN *talks* about consensus and a
consensus building process, we actually do it. You're watching it
happen.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all,
  Again Esther, more political BULLHOCKY!  You should know
very well
that the bulk of the comments regarding moving on the WIPO RFC-3
"Final report" was to put that off and either allow for the DNSO to
be completely
formulated and than get their recomendation before considering adoption
or it should be determined by the ICANN membership by majority vote
as to what parts of the WIPO RFC-3 "Final Report" Recommendations
should be adopted.  But as Diane reported earlier yesterday, you
and the
ICANN Interim board only "OCCASIONALLY" read those comments.
  STOP LYING!
Esther Dyson wrote:
This is not true. I did indeed mention the opposition
to moving fast on
WIPO, several times, and read several comments, esp. Froomkin's, which
was
one of the primary substantive ones, and noted the disparity in support
for
individual members from outside the room.
But yes, I (taking responsibility)/we (it's a team effort)  will
do it
better next time.  See next message (later).
Esther
At 03:45 PM 28/05/99 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked
her
>to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
>prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
>
>
>At 09:58 PM 5/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Diane C wrote:
>>
>>>I forgot to mention that the comments that come in from people listening
>>>to the
>>>webcasts are also read to the assembly.
>>
>>Only on the first day.  On the second day, Esther promised several
times
>>that she would "get to" the written comments from the webcast, but
she
>>never really did.  There was a passing few notices of the support
for the
>>Individual constituency, but VERY little mention of the serious opposition
>>to the WIPO proposal provided by the webcast viewers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
>
>
Esther Dyson   
Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com   
http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
 

Re: [IFWP] Berlin Mood, today 28 May

[Jeff Williams]

Esther and all,

  More political BULLHOCKY from you Esther.  You should be ashamed!
Keep it up if you wish.  Nobody believes you anyway.  Your own public
comments belie this comment as they have so many times before.

Esther Dyson wrote:

> THere *is* something in the Board minutes about it; I will find the wording
> and pass it along, but I'm in an airplane right now.  As I said to Joop,
> sincerely, I did not want to talk with him privately about this but
> preferred to answer his legitimate questions in public, which I tried to do
> earlier today.  We are not trying to "fob you off" with this argument; we
> are trying to figre out how to achieve the proper balance, and, like you, we
> think that a larger membership is better, all things being equal. One
> trade-off is size of membership in numbers vs. involvement/knowledgeability
> of members.  (Of course, you try to move the trade-off curve as well as move
> *along* the curve.)
>
> Esther Dyson
>
> At , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Dear supporters of the idea that Individuals need their representation on
> the DNSO.
> >
> >Just a brief message at this point. When I'm back in New Zealand I will
> have the chance to digest all that has happened a bit better.
> >
> >It has been an emotional up and down.
> >Yesterday, when we were handed the Board resolutions, I was dismayed that
> there was absolutely nothing about our application in it.
> >
> >Not even a polite acknowledgement of our efforts and our application for a
> separate constituency.
> >
> >I called Esther and asked if she could give me a private indication of what
> was wrong with our application to deserve such a treatment.
> >
> >She preferred to refer to our application in public at the presscon the
> next day.
> >
> >This is what happened just now. She gave me the chance to speak again, this
> time with the press present.
> >
> >I did so and generated a little deeper debate.  Let's hope the press deals
> with it intelligently.
> >
> >The upshot is, that ICANN did make a (not-published) resolution on our
> application.
> >"We have looked at it, debated it at length and decided not to take any
> action on it at this moment".
> >
> >The reason for this stance was also explained.
> >Balanced representation on the ICANN board (individual users vs. commercial
> stakeholders)
> >has to be achieved both through the at -large membership and the DNSO.
> >
> >What will be accepted in the DNSO will depend on how finally the membership
> will be qualified.
> >
> >It has not yet been decided that there will be an "all users" membership,
> even though that is the recommendation of the MAC.
> >
> >We just have to be very vigilant that we will not be fobbed off with this
> argument.
> >
> >We need to grow exponentially before we are considered at the Santiago
> meeting on 24 August.
> >We have to present ourselves as a critical and responsible partner in the
> process of building fair representation in Internet Governance.
> >
> >We can do it.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >--Joop--
> >
> >
> >
>
> Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies (Don Heath's medeling again)

[Jeff Williams]

Richard and all,

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> At 07:16 PM 5/28/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 01:03:20AM +0200, Onno Hovers wrote:
> >> > FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board determines that no proposal to create a
> >> > non-commercial domain name holders Constituency has yet been
> >> > submitted that is appropriate for recognition.
> >>
> >> > FURTHER RESOLVED, with the recognition that the interests
> >> > represented by a non-commercial domain name holders Constituency
> >> > should be involved as early as possible in the DNSO organization
> >> > process, the Board urges that the organizers of this Constituency
> >> > should submit a consensus application for provisional recognition
> >> > as soon as possible, so that the issue of recognition can be
> >> > reconsidered by the Board no later than an anticipated meeting
> >> > during the week of June 21 so that representatives of this
> >> > Constituency can join the provisional Names Council.
> >>
> >> Why wasn't a non-commercial domain name holders constituency
> >> recognized? Why didn't the non-commercial domain name holders
> >> reach a consensus?
> >
> >Precisely because Milton Mueller and Michael Sondow insisted on a
> >structure with the two of them in positions of power.  There was no
> >other reason; that particular point was the last sticking point.
> >
> >
> >> The current DNSO is now mainly a trade organization.
> >
> >Thank Milton and Michael.
>
> I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest so I'll state
> my observations once and don't care to discuss it. I was in attendance
> for the NC meeting, as was Esteher and John Klemsin. Ask them if
> my observation is correct.

  No need to ask Esther or John, I have now heard form several others
on this list and in private posts as well...

>
>
> Michael Sondow had the first NC propoasl. The ISOC/Heath proopsal
> was second and had 30 ISOC/IAHC friendly organizations as signatories.

  This is exactly correct Richard.  SOme on this list seem to be confused
in this regard.  William (The whiner) Walsh most especially...

>
>
> The Mueller/ACM proposal was supposed to be a compromise.

  Correct.  And a fairly good one as well.

>
>
> I watched Sondow and Mueller make all sorts of compromises I
> didn't see Heath make any. I talked to him about it and
> was told "my constituents won't accept this". I asked how
> he knew this without asking them or explaining the situation.

  Don Heath is always making such broad statements without checking with
the ISOC membership.  Kinda tells you what he thinks of the ISOC membership
doesn't it?

>
>
> In the end the dispute was about one paraghraph - how to
> elect the names council memebrs. Heath wanted the 30 orgs
> he signed up to elect them, many other peple pointed out
> one names council member from each of the 3 groups invoilved
> in this seemed reasonable. Heath would not do this, hence
> more than one NC proposal, hence no NC constituencey at
> this time.

  Yep, this how I understood it as well.  And the ICANN Interim board
went along with it!  Unexceptable!!

>
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)

[Jeff Williams]

Diane and all,

  The real problem which you eluded to with these ICANN meetings is poor
planning in as much as not enough time allotted for each meeting.

Diane Cabell wrote:

> I seem to remember a few being posted on the screen while being read aloud
> during the morning session, but I was working on MAC documents and not able to
> pay keen attention. They read Bret's question about ICANN legal fees.  In the
> afternoon, the speakers who were physically present had a hard time keeping
> their remarks brief.  It appeared quite frustrating for everyone.  Too much to
> say, too little time.
>
> Many of these people spoke multiple times and were the same folks who have
> attended most of the previous meetings.  Do you think a one-comment-per-speaker
> rule would have been inappropriate?
>
> Diane Cabell
> http://www.mama-tech.com
> Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
> Boston, MA
>
> Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> > I tired my best. You'll note that about 4:12 pm on wednesday I asked her
> > to read them and she wouldnt. I don't think "having the scribes
> > prepare summaries of the remote comments" counts as "remote participation".
> >
> > At 09:58 PM 5/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Diane C wrote:
> > >
> > >>I forgot to mention that the comments that come in from people listening
> > >>to the
> > >>webcasts are also read to the assembly.
> > >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Re: [IFWP] (Fwd) ZNet (was: ICANNs Berlin Meeting

[Jeff Williams]

Kerry and all,

  Yes indeed.  Execelent idea.

Kerry Miller wrote:

> If ICANN really wants to manage "so many serious, substantive, on-
> topic comments," I'm sure ZNet would be happy to help them set
> up a similar system.  Indeed, given their respective (and
> prospective) budgets, perhaps ICANN should be asked to show
> cause why its failure to take this step in the past six months
> should not be considered as deliberate disenfranchisement of the
> great majority of its 'membership'  from the setting-up process.
>
> kerry
>
> --- Forwarded Message Follows ---
> Date sent:  Thu, 27 May 1999 22:10:30 -0500 (CDT)
> From:   "Michael Albert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:ZNet on new content & systems + recent Howard Zinn Kosovo 
>commentary
>
> Hi,
>
> This is another in our series of ZNet Free Updates (ZNet is at
> www.zmag.org)  [...]
>
> The second big addition to ZNet this week is a new forum system.
> You may remember from a prior ZNet Update that the old forum
> system (with over 12000 messages in it) crumped out just a couple
> of weeks back. Well, we now have new software from Webboard to
> replace the old defunct software from IChat, and it is much
> improved, we believe. But there are other changes in the system
> too.
>
> Mainly, the ZNet Public Forum System which will soon be open to
> all users of ZNet just by signing in from a link on the ZNet top
> page, is no longer moderated. All posts will appear automatically
> and immediately, and none will be removed or moved, for that
> matter, for any reason. Also, there will only be a few broad areas of
> focus, not the forty or so that existed in the past. We hope that
> folks will be civil and constructive, but we aren't overseeing the
> system and there is no reason to think that only folks with Z/ZNet
> sensibilities will be using it. Also, a number of notable participants
> in the old public system including myself, chomsky, zinn, and
> ehrenreich will no longer host their own forums or likely participate
> much at all.
>
> What the hell is happening--you might reasonably wonder? Why this devolution
> in scope and participation of the public forum system?
>
> The answer is that:
>
> (a) a public system, even impersonal and anonymous, was too much to keep up
> with especially for the noted forum hosts, and...
> (b) it was too much to provide (the maintanence, software, and bandwidth)
> without any required supporting resources or sustained comittment to it by
> all its participants.
>
> In other words, for a really rich and diverse discussion system with
> responsible participation by lots of different kinds of folks plus oversight
> and moderation, we need a higher level of comittment from everyone who is
> involved. Thus, we have added to our operations a SECOND forum system,
> distinct from the public one, which is accessible only to recipients of
> ZNet's Daily Commentaries -- that is, only to regular donors to ZNet/Z.
>
> This second forum system, which is for for ZNet Commentary
> recipients and writers only, is moderated -- uncivil messages (of
> which there unlikely to be any in the first place) will be removed --
> and also has many diverse forums. More, a substantial selection of
> the writers participating in the ZNet Commentary Program are
> hosting their own forums in this system to answer queries and
> respond to critical comments about their commentaries and views
> more generally. And, as well, all past commentaries are in the
> system, searchable, etc., with future ones to be added as
> available.
>
> The writer participants of the Commentary Forum System so far
> include noam chomsky, howard zinn, michael albert, tim wise,
> elaine bernard, robin hahnel, barbara ehrenreich, leslie cagan,
> stephen shalom, cynthia peters, mokhiber/weissman, peter
> bohmer, brian dominick, and sandy carter, with more joining daily.
> Each of these commentary writers hosts a forum where
> commentary recipients can ask about the host's commentaries or
> other matters, as well. The new system has an improved browser
> interface that includes an easy to use live chat facility, user paging,
> searching of messages by author, key words, etc., plus email
> access (which means that you can have any conference function
> for you as a listserv so that you can participate entirely from your
> email program receiving all messages to it, replying via email to
> any message you wish to and having your reply show up in the
> system, etc.), plus (still being prepared) news reader access as
> well. Supporting all this functionality, participation, and community
> is a good part of what the ZNet Commentary Program
> (http://www.zmag.org/commentaries/donorform.htm ) which is now
> serving 950 users, is all about. We hope you will consider joining
> the program and to make it easy, the next message you get, likely
> within a few hours of this one, will be about a special promotion
> offer for joining between now