[IFWP] Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN-LA Meetings
Yes Ben - it's ICANN fiesta time - one more time. But this meeting will not be boring. We at pccf will be doing very little this time round. But we are looking forward to watching the show. And I can gurantee that this will be a good show. It will be boring with moments of entertainment. I expect as always the irc channel will be restricted - i.e. no conversations about fruits or racy cocktail drinks ;-) regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista http://www.dot.god/ dot.GOD Hostmaster On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Ben Edelman wrote: Greetings! Because you attended or participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN meetings, ICANN would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held in Los Angeles, California on November 13 through 16. Major agenda items will include policies relating to the creation of new top-level domain registries and relating to ccTLD delegation and administration. More information about the meetings is available at http://www.icann.org/mdr2000. If you plan to attend in person, please preregister via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/preregistration (if you have not already done so). While preregistration is not required, it helps local organizers anticipate attendance and allows you to be kept up to date with logistical updates as they become available. All plenary sessions will also be webcast with full remote participation. For more information about the webcast, including technical requirements to participate, see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000. If you plan to participate by webcast, please preregister using http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/preregistration. Finally, if you are not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you may want to join it. Subscription instructions at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcements.htm. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] FW: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Pressing Issues II - Upcoming One-Day Mini-Conference
-Original Message- From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:09 AM To: Participants in Berkman Center ICANN-Related Events Subject: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Pressing Issues II - Upcoming One-Day Mini-Conference Greetings! The Berkman Center for Internet and Society invites you to "Pressing Issues II: Understanding and Critiquing ICANN's Policy Agenda," a series of moderated panel discussions on issues facing ICANN at its annual meeting in LA. The event will take place on the afternoon of Sunday, November 12th at the Marriott Hotel in Marina del Rey, California. The sessions will be open to the public and webcast live with remote participation. Planning for this event is ongoing, and the panel descriptions included below are tentative and subject to change and refinement. For up-to-date information about cosponsors and additional panelists, please visit the conference web site at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000. If you intend to participate, in person or via webcast, please preregister via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000 to help us gauge capacity requirements. Preliminary Event Schedule: 1pm -- UDRP Review Harvard Law School professor Jonathan Zittrain will lead a panel discussion focused on review of the first year of operation of the UDRP. Panelists will include Syracuse University professor Milton Mueller, ICANN general counsel Louis Touton, Mike Palage of InfoNetworks, and UMASS Law School professor Ethan Katsh. 3pm -- At-Large Membership and Elections Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson moderate a discussion on the role of the ICANN membership, the role of national identity in the ICANN policymaking process, and the import of the process and outcome of these first At-Large elections. Panelists will include ICANN board member-elect Nii Quaynor, ICANN board at-large candidate Barbara Simons, ICANN senior policy advisor Andrew McLaughlin, and others. All newly-elected ICANN Board members have been invited to participate. 5pm -- Break 5:30pm -- New Top-Level Domains Following a short afternoon break, we will discuss the new TLD applications and analyze the application process and criteria. Panelists will include representatives of organizations submitting applications as well as outside analysts. Confirmed panelists include Chris Ambler of Image Online Design and Richard Forman of Register.com. The Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School http://cyber.law.harvard.edu The Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School is a research program exploring the legal, social, and political issues resulting from the development of the Internet and its impact on society. (You are receiving this message because you previously participated in a Berkman Center ICANN-related event in person or via webcast. If you have received this message in error, or if you'd prefer not to receive occasional similar messages in the future, please reply to this message.)
[IFWP] RE: ANNOUNCE: A Day with the North-American ICANN Candidates
With the event described below drawing near, and six of seven North-American At Large candidates confirmed to attend, I want to make especially certain to have sufficient RealServer capacity to accommodate everyone who wishes to join via webcast. Accordingly, it's extra important that everyone planning to participate in the webcast preregister via the form linked from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum. Doing so lets us know how many webcast viewers to expect, and thus how much RealServer capacity and bandwidth we must secure for a successful transmission. (I also want to note that remote participation in this event will use a newly-overhauled mechanism that I hope and expect will greatly improve the webcast experience by reducing the number of simultaneous windows and other objects to keep track of. I'm therefore especially interested in suggestions for improvements to the remote participation system itself.) More information about the event follows. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet Society Harvard Law School The Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School and the Internet Democracy Project are pleased to announce two events featuring the ICANN North American candidates, each of which take place on Monday, October 2, 2000 on the Harvard Law School campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is the nonprofit organization that was formed in 1998 to assume responsibility for the domain name system, protocol parameter assignment, and related functions. ICANN's upcoming online election, taking place from October 1-10, will give the ICANN At-Large membership a voice in the organization's decisions through its selection of five members for ICANN's Board of Directors. One Director will be chosen from each of five geographic regions: Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America. There are seven candidates competing for the North American seat. Free and open to the public, both events will be webcast live with remote participation, and feature the candidates engaging in informal dialogue as well as formal debate. * "A Dialogue with the Candidates," 4:20-6:00p.m. EDT, moderated by Jonathan Zittrain, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Professor Jonathan Zittrain's "Internet Society 2000" Harvard Law School class will host a moderated discussion with the candidates, exploring the role of ICANN as an organization, the role of the ICANN directors, and the scope and meaning of ICANN's At-Large membership. The discussion will be open to the public and webcast live with remote participation. Both the online and in-person audiences will have the opportunity to pose questions for the candidates. This event is presented by the Berkman Center for Internet Society. * "ICANN North American Candidate Forum," 7:30-9:30p.m. EDT, moderated by Jean-Claude Guedon, University of Montreal. Expanding the format of the Presidential Commission debates, Jean-Claude Guedon will moderate a question-and-answer session among the seven North American ICANN candidates about the issues facing ICANN and the role of ICANN itself. Candidates will respond to questions posed by a distinguished panel including Declan McCullagh of Wired Magazine. The forum will be open to the public in-person and online via webcast with a real-time discussion forum. After the forum, candidates will have the opportunity to submit brief written follow-up responses to the forum's questions, and these responses will be posted along with video and other archive materials in the archive. This event is presented by the Berkman Center for Internet Society and the Internet Democracy Project. For more information about these events, including how to register to attend or view the live webcast, please visit the "A Day with the ICANN North American Candidates" website at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/candidateforum. Please note that these events are not sponsored by, nor affiliated with, ICANN. The Berkman Center for Internet Society at Harvard Law School is a research program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and identify and engage the challenges and opportunities it presents. The Internet Democracy Project is a non-partisan organization that seeks to enhance public participation in decisions concerning the future of the Internet. We look forward to seeing you in Cambridge or to your participation via the Internet. *** The Berkman Center for Internet Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu The Internet Democracy Project http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org
Re: [IFWP] There's something dirty in the works
Bill, I'm quite honestly intrigued by the concern you raise. You may not trust my word, but I'd nonetheless like to personally assure you that there's no conspiracy. I'd further like to back that up with all facts available to me, so here's what my archived sign-in logs report: You (or someone using your name!) logged in from IP 207.202.137.127 (which seems to be a dialup IP used by a company called Northwest Link, www.nwlink.com) using a browser that identified itself as Netscape 4.61, English, running on Win98. The login was made at 5:02PM Eastern time, 8:02PM Pacific time, towards the end of the Names Council but before the GAC (according to the chat log from that day). I'm afraid I have retained neither primary web server nor RealServer logs going back that far, so I can't tell you what else a user from that IP might have done, though I can confirm that no one from that IP entered the chat room via the web-based chat interface. I should note that nothing about the sign-in looks particularly suspicious. There were no other remote participation sign-ins from that IP, on that day or at any other ICANN meeting before or since. Furthermore, no real-time comments or chat messages were submitted under your name. I take your message below to suggest not that another remote participant impersonated you for some indeterminate and perhaps malicious purpose (a theoretical possibility I find somewhat intriguing!) but that you believe ICANN or the Berkman Center added your name to the list of remote participants in order to add "respectability" to the meeting. If you're inclined to think as much, I suppose I ultimately have little ability to dissuade you from that perspective... but I must say that doesn't seem a convincing story to me. Personally, I'd want to explore quite a few other explanations before making an accusation so serious! I hope this addresses at least some of your concerns, and I'm happy to follow up in greater detail either on- or off-list, as you prefer. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School William S. Lovell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, guys and gals: I find in the following, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/archive/remotes-110299.html, that I was a "remote participant" in an ICANN to-do. Sorry, but I was not. Check it out and see how many others of you have had your names used to pad the ICANN spectre of respectability. Now if I only knew an attorney . . . ! (Let's hear it for Google searches.) Bill Lovell
Re: [IFWP] This sort of crap really bothers me - ICANN Sunrise Plus TwentyProposal (fwd)
For the record, as far as I know, Mark Chen has no affiliation with the Berkman Center. Harvard is, after all, an awfully big place! Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School !Dr. Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I keep getting solicitation messages from ICANN cronies. Why? Anyway - this goes into my reply email file and i just felt like shareing. This will be replied to some time later as a public message. I hate ICANN solicitaions. I'm still waiting for my membership @Large - has anyone actually recieved an ICANN@Large membership for - correspondenc via snail mail - what's happening with that? Meanwhile, this ICANN fool mercenary from the Haravrd pansies over at Berkman is sending me spam, a private solicitation for input. For what - to waste my time. I've got correspondence backlogged - and ICANN is sending me junk like this. Normally - I don't care, but Ester - where's my ICANN@Large membership. Has anyone in these newsgroups gotten one? I have yet to hear that anyone has received an ICANN@Large membership. What's happening with that. And Ester - as you know I give ICANN my undivided attention, I rather have my membership card instead of putting up getting this gibberish which is only asking me to contribute to the ICANN nonsense. The world hates you and your delays are losing me real opportunity. I wanted to incorporate this years theme of ICANN - Chile Porn - Yakohama on the table to the at large membership. I think it's time to put in some balance to the current clowns who are on the board - don't you dear ;-) For the record Ester - I've made my position on the issue very clear, in the Support In Opposition To The New TLD Sunrise Clause submitted by Mr. Sexton and Dr. Berryhill you will note I endorsed that document. The only thing I want to do is provide you with notice that the tld .god will be active this year and it's charter will defining the tld as property. So get your act together ester - it's time for Yokohama ;-) Cheers Joe Baptista -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:06:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joseph Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ICANN Sunrise Plus Twenty Proposal Dear Mr. Baptista: As you probably know, the Names Council of ICANN is considering a "Sunrise Plus Twenty" proposal that would give right of first refusal to all trademark and servicemark holders in new top-level domains. The Names Council is accepting public e-mail comments on the issue until May 10 and may use these comments in making recommendations to the ICANN board. Both the "Sunrise Plus Twenty" proposal and relevant e-mail comments can be found at http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm Most of the e-mail comments to date have been from corporate trademark-holders that support the proposal. I would like to encourage you to voice your opposition to "Sunrise Plus Twenty" via e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and to inform others who might be inclined to do likewise. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mark A. Chen
[IFWP] RE: RealServer problems
The RealAudio files linked from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso still work for me. Our RealServer logs look completely normal -- I see a number of accesses from the past few hours, including quite a few users requesting and successfully receiving content from the very ICANN DNSO files linked from that page. If you're getting a particular error message, I'd be happy to help troubleshoot the problem, but I'm afraid I so far haven't received the necessary diagnostic information (specific file requested, player version, OS, type of network connection, IP address [so I can check for an entry in our RealServer log], whether or not you're behind a firewall, proxy server, or Network Address Translation device). Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 4:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ben - fix the real server - it's flacking again All the real audio links on the following page do not work. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ Does that help you out Ben? If you have any further problems with this myopic view of your network - please advise. Regards Joe On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: More detail - it's don't work. regards joe On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Ben Edelman wrote: This is the first report I've had recently of any problems with it. Can you provide more details about the problems you're currently experiencing? Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ben - fix the real server - it's flacking again ben - fix the real server - it's flacking again
Re: [IFWP] where is the ICANN video
As good as the 'net was in the LA hotel where the meetings took place, it wasn't good enough to upload ~85MB video files on the first try... or the second or the third! So we tried a few times with the especially large 11/3 file but failed quite consistently... will have to do it from Cambridge once we get the computers unpacked and back on the 'net. In the meanwhile, the audio recordings are now posted and available. (BTW, the rest of the archive is more or less complete. Save for these two video files, scribe's notes from Thursday [which, in all honesty, we somehow just forgot to do -- no excuse available but that we were busy and at times distracted by other tasks], participation statistics, and unofficial pictures, I believe the archive is now complete.) -Ben Edelman, back in Cambridge as of ~45 minutes ago... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The berkman center has yet to post the Icann video for the november 3 and 4 meetings. This is unusual. Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com
[IFWP] REMINDER: ICANN-LA Now In Progress
A quick reminder: The DNSO General Assembly is now meeting in Los Angeles California. Meetings will continue this afternoon with open sessions held by the Names Council and GAC. Webcasts of these meetings as well as tomorrow's ICANN Public Meeting and Thursday's Open Board Meeting will be accessible from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la. All content -- RealVideo, scribe's notes, comments received, remote and physical participant lists, chat logs, presentations given -- will also be accessible from that address. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] UPDATE: ICANN-LA Remote Participation
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org), which will take place in Los Angeles, California on November 1-4, 1999. Most meetings start between 8:30 and 9:00 AM PST. Options for online participation will include RealAudio and RealVideo webcasts; a system for the submission of real-time comments directly to the meeting room itself; real-time scribe's notes; and real-time chat among online meeting participants. Basic participation in the meeting requires a 14.4Kbps or faster connection to the Internet and version 5.0 or later of the freely available RealPlayer, which can be downloaded from RealNetworks at http://www.real.com. Participation in the real-time chat requires either a JAVA-enabled browser or an IRC client. For more information about the meeting (including a FAQ, schedule, agenda, and technical details), go to http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/. To get connected on the days of the meetings, go to http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/ just before the start of each meeting. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] FW: ANNOUNCE: Proposed NC Procedure from Berkman Center
-Original Message- From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ANNOUNCE: Proposed NC Procedure from Berkman Center At its August meeting in Santiago, Chile, the Names Council asked the Berkman Center to propose a set of procedures by which it might more effectively conduct its in-person meetings. Several Harvard Law School students have researched the task and prepared a draft recommended procedure. Rather than attach the surprisingly large Word documents and PowerPoint presentations to this message, I've posted them online at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure/ The students working on the project began their recommendation to the Names Council with the following text that I think effectively frames the task at hand: "Thank you for inviting us to participate and contribute in your efforts to come up with a workable Domain Name System. We hope to facilitate the objectives of the Names Council, namely, advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System. We have therefore provided a set of procedural rules that the Names Council can adhere to when formulating consensus recommendations. Enclosed are our suggestions for the Names Council meeting procedures, as well as our conception of how the Names Council formulates recommendations and presents them to the ICANN board. While the rest of this package will explain in detail the procedures we suggest and why we urge their adoption, this brief letter will attempt to highlight some of the themes and policies that underlie our choices and motivate our reasoning. We hope you find these comments and procedures to be helpful as you tackle the DNS issues ahead." The document remains a work in progress; the students, other Berkman Center staff and affiliates, and, I believe, the Names Council itself all solicit comments and suggestions from all interested parties. To that end, we've prepared a discussion space on the web site, though we'll also be following the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for relevant discussion taking place here. Ben Edelman Berkman Center
[IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Los Angeles Remote Participation
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org), which will take place in Los Angeles, California on November 1-4, 1999. Options for online participation will include RealAudio and RealVideo webcasts; a system for the submission of real-time questions and comments directly to the meeting room itself; real-time scribe's notes; and real-time chat among online meeting participants. Basic participation in the meeting requires a 14.4Kbps or faster connection to the Internet and version 5.0 or later of the freely available RealMedia player, which can be downloaded from RealNetworks at http://www.real.com. Participation in the real-time chat requires either a JAVA-enabled browser or an IRC client. To participate remotely in the meetings or for obtain more information (including a FAQ, schedule, agenda, and technical details), go to http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la/. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] ANNOUNCE: Berkman Center Analysis of Proposed ICANN Agreements
Affiliates of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society have been reviewing the recently-announced Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc. We've focused our analysis on the text of the Fact Sheet, locating text in the various agreements that relates to the facts, and occasionally providing our own analysis and questions. We hope ultimately to provide a useful roadmap (among many others from diverse sources) to the documents, which behind their legal language amount to sweeping policy for the legacy domain name system and the relationships among its current major parties. Our work in progress as it stands is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/fall99contracts/. We've also provided a threaded discussion space there (accessible via the web, email, and NNTP), and we'll be updating the page frequently as we continue to examine the documents. Comments and critiques -- the more specific the better -- are welcomed and solicited. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] ANNOUNCE: CPSR Conference Archive Now Available
The multimedia archive of this past weekend's "Governing the Commons: The Future of Global Internet Administration" conference, presented by the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, is now available at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events. The archive includes Realaudio, Realvideo, HTML versions of presentations, and links to official CPSR text archives of the proceedings. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] FW: [announce] NC teleconference announcement, September 15th 1999
The DNSO didn't send this message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I'm forwarding it on for those of you who many not be on [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note that the teleconference will be webcast by the Berkman Center. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso for details. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [announce] NC teleconference announcement, September 15th 1999 [To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] [Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]] [from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990915.NCtelecon-agenda.html] ICANN/DNSO DNSO Names Council Teleconference on September 15th, 1999 - agenda September 14, 1999. Date, time, phones and webcast 1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on September 15th at the following time: NC Teleconference, September 15th, 1999, 2 hours, begins: Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 13:00 California, USAUTC-8+1DST 6:00 Missouri, USA UTC-6+1DST 8:00 Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 9:00 Ottawa, Canada UTC-5+1DST 9:00 Santiago, ChileUTC-4+0DST 9:00 Montevideo, UruguayUTC-3+0DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaUTC-3+0DST 10:00 Dublin, IrelandUTC+0+1DST 14:00 Brussels, Belgium(CET) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Barcelona, Spain (CET) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Madrid, Spain(CET) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Frankfurt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Paris, France(CET) UTC+1+1DST 15:00 Seoul, Korea UTC+9+0DST 22:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 22:00 For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ 2. Theresa Swinehart is kindly providing the teleconference bridge 3. The NC will be webcast by Berkman Center, thanks to Ben Edelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Access will be via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso as usual. Requires RealPlayer 5.0 or later and a 14.4Kbps or faster modem. The NC expects each of the Constituencies to raise some money to pay for webcast. The business plan and budget are the first item on the NC agenda. 4. Remote participants to the open NC meeting may send questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Agenda and related documents 1. Discussion and adoption of agenda 2. Minutes and Matters Arising 3. The DNSO Business Plan and Budget 4. Election of ICANN Board Members o Javier Sola Motion to the NC http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990915.NCmotion-voteICANNBoard.html for the procedure concerning elections of 3 delegates from the DNSO to the ICANN Board o Denis Jennings Motion about geographic diversity of the Names Council: "The Names Council agree that no two of the three ICANN Board Directors elected by the DNSO may be residents (citizens ?) of the same geographic region." Supported by Amadeu Abril i Abril with the following comment: I support that. And I am afraid tht the 7citizenship" requiremnt when regarding Board Directors is very unlikely to be softened in any occasion 5. Election of Permanent Names Council Members o Amadeu Abril i Abril: All constituencies are requested to explain whether they were holding new elections on the scheduled timer or not, and whether they were considering to ask for a "geographic diversity waiver". Registrars Constituency is holding new elections (as it was the original compromise before the Board request) and is considering, even if not yet decided to ask for a partial waiver, in the form of requesting that residency, not citizenship be taken into account for this NC elections. 6. WG-D Report o Theresea Swinehart and Brett Faucett, Co-chairs of WG-D, sent the interim proposal to the NC http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990914.WGDreport-to-NC.html 7. Schedule of Meetings In LA
[IFWP] RE: anonymity on this list?
Peter, First of all, you may be unaware, but messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are archived and/or analyzed at a number of sites on the 'net, not just the Berkman Center ICANN-Related Discussion List Statistics page. They're also included in Richard Sexton's archive (I don't have the URL handy here, but perhaps he'll post it in reply), as well as no doubt in countless private archives like the NNTP server the Berkman Center maintains. Despite the @law address, I'm no lawyer, but my instincts tell me that the fact of your participation in this public discussion makes it more than reasonable for list archives, public or private, kept by any interested party, to include your message. Yours is the first request I've received to be removed from the List Statistics page. (And, incidentally, it's also the first such request I've received from you; if you previously posted to this list or sent me private email, I missed it or did not receive it.) It's not a request I'm inclined to grant -- it seems to me that we're all better served by a comprehensive, accurate archive than by a partial archive subject to ex post alteration as demanded by individual list participants. All that said, I'd be open to comments from the list. If the list consensus really is contrary to my instincts -- if people want an "opt out" policy for the archive -- I'd certainly consider as much, and the operators of other archives might then consider doing the same. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School Richard J. Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded: Peter Orvetti wrote: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/listanalysis/IFWPAllMessagesBySender.html Please remove all references to "Orvetti" or "Peter Orvetti" from the above-mentioned Web page, which is maintained by you. I have sent this request several times before. I'd like to be able to use the Web site without my name appearing on a public list! Thank you for your assistance.
Re: [IFWP] Letter from Santiago
board was discussing membership.") If I fail to look into your complaint, tell you what I believe happened, and make an effort to resolve the problem or at least tell you why it can't be fixed, then you're free, as far as I'm concerned, to cry foul. But if you don't give me the opportunity to correct what may well be just a simple oversight or mistake on my part, I just don't think it's fair for you to allege anything out of the ordinary. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] UPDATE: ICANN-Santiago Online Archive Availability
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society has nearly completed the online multimedia archive of last week's Santiago, Chile meetings of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org). The online archive includes RealVideo of all plenary sessions (in English, Spanish, and Portuguese), scribe's notes, a complete listing of real-time comments received, resolutions adopted and considered, presentations given in the meetings, a log of the online real-time chat, a list of online participants, and statistical information on the geographic diversity of online participants. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School (You are receiving this message because you, or someone pretending to be you, participated in one or more sessions of the ICANN-Santiago Open Meetings. If you do not wish to receive future announcements re ICANN Open Meetings, please let me know.)
[IFWP] UPDATE: ICANN-SANTIAGO REMOTE PARTICIPATION ARCHIVES
The webcast of this morning's Open Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors is complete, and Berkman staff is now preparing for the Names Council meeting starting at 2:00 Eastern time (7:00PM GMT) this afternoon. As usual, join us via http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago for a webcast, remote participation, and online chat. Content from yesterday's Public Meeting is now posted in the archive at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive, including scribe's notes (by both Berkman staff and Ellen Rony; other notes welcomed via off-list message to me), real-time comments received, documents and presentations used in the meeting, remote participant list, and a log of the real-time chat. The RealVideo is currently about 65% through the two-hour upload to our servers; we expect that the transfer will be complete within another hour. Content from this morning's meeting of the ICANN Board is also in the archive, including resolutions adopted and scribe's notes. RealVideo coming shortly. Problems, missing info, bad links -- to me on or off-list, as appropriate. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
RE: [IFWP] archive unavailability
From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/realtime , it should be possible to get real-time scribe's notes, video, and various documents including powerpoint presentations and docs presented to the assembled group. That's working ok for us at the moment and fo rsome people in the realtime chat, I believe. We are having some trouble uploading the large powrepoint presentations at times due to net congestion, but it should be OK generally, I believe. Please describe the problem in more detail. BTW, I'd prefer if people not go to or link directly to the broadcast.asp file. Registration is requested to participate remotely, and certain features become unreliable and/or nonoperable without prior registration. It works, sort of, but I strongly recommend against it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 9:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: [IFWP] archive unavailability if he means GAC open meeting, he's wrong, right? you might want to clarify when you have a spare moment. Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:28:33 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "A.M. Rutkowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IFWP] archive unavailability Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Real Audio, Video and Chat for the ICANN meetings at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/realtime/broadcast.asp However, the real time scribe notes, archive video, and communique from the GAC are not available. --tony
[IFWP] ANNOUNCE: Partial Santiago Meeting Archives Online
I wanted to take this break in the Public Meeting to report that yesterday's DNSO and GAC sessions are now archived on the Berkman Center ICANN-Santiago archive site at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive. We've got RealVideo (all in one big file ... not yet excerpted by meeting agenda item but that's likely coming later tonight or early next week at the very latest, depending on time availability), scribe's notes, online participant list, real-time comments received, and the log of the real-time chat (to be reformatted when I get back to the US). Problems, missing information, etc. are all possible -- we've been very rushed these past few days and haven't had the best connectivity which makes everything harder. So, corrections, comments, suggestions for the future, etc. all welcomed on or off-list. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
The IRC server has suffered some minor difficulties in the last 24 hours -- nothing I couldn't resolve if I were at the server console in Cambridge... but I'm not, and indeed the entire Berkman "primary technical staff" is either here in Santiago or on vacation away from Cambridge. That said, I expect to talk someone through bringing it back up tomorrow morning, and I do indeed hope it'll be operational by tomorrow afternoon. If not, I'd take recommendations for a good free, low-bandwidth-friendly, JAVA-enabled web browser-accessible, ideally-also-IRC-accessible hosted chat site to use for tomorrow afternoon. Something commercial, something non-commercial, or something one of you might be able to cobble together on 16 hours notice... any would be good for me. But I do still think hope we can get our own server back up and running. Will keep everyone posted. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Monday, August 23, 1999, 3:37:19 PM, Ben Edelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, Any reason why the IRC server is down? -- William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ (IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
For those who are interested -- the IRC server is back online and fully operational. I discourage using it before the GA session starts at 2:00 Eastern time -- comments made there before the meeting officially begins won't be read by me, other Berkman staff, or the ICANN board, and neither will they be archived. Hope lots of you are planning to join us online in a bit more than two hours!... Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School -Original Message- From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 6:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation The IRC server has suffered some minor difficulties in the last 24 hours -- nothing I couldn't resolve if I were at the server console in Cambridge... but I'm not, and indeed the entire Berkman "primary technical staff" is either here in Santiago or on vacation away from Cambridge. That said, I expect to talk someone through bringing it back up tomorrow morning, and I do indeed hope it'll be operational by tomorrow afternoon. If not, I'd take recommendations for a good free, low-bandwidth-friendly, JAVA-enabled web browser-accessible, ideally-also-IRC-accessible hosted chat site to use for tomorrow afternoon. Something commercial, something non-commercial, or something one of you might be able to cobble together on 16 hours notice... any would be good for me. But I do still think hope we can get our own server back up and running. Will keep everyone posted. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Monday, August 23, 1999, 3:37:19 PM, Ben Edelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, Any reason why the IRC server is down? -- William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/ (IDNO MEMBER) Support the Cyberspace Association, the constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org
Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
FYI, our firewall problems were solved by some last-minute reconfiguration I managed to complete this afternoon. All known firewall users were able to connect just fine this afternoon to the RealServer after these configuration changes were completed, and if anyone else is having firewall issues, I'd be happy to work with them off-list. -Ben, just checking the list after a long day BrandonButterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I may need to take you up on that offer of the dial-in. I'm trying to listen to the archive of the ccTLD meeting from yesterday, and getting the same firewall issues I usually have (not available via http). Real can serve over http if configured regards, brandon
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Patrick Greenwell wrote: And herein lies the rub, and the disparity between on-line participants and those physically present. Those physically present can stand in line for a mike and say whatever it is they wish to say. Those not physically present are *filtered* through the staff. I do realize that remote participants are disadvantaged in certain ways, and my overall goal remains, as Ellen suggests it should be, to create parity between physical and remote participation. But the two are just different in certain ways. So, while so far the list has discussed the reasons why remote participation seems inferior, I'd like to point out a few factors that weigh in on the opposite side, i.e. ways in which it might be thought to be "better" to be a remote participant than to attend physically. * While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens in the front of the room on which comments will be displayed. If I'm doing my job right, your comment is displayed on screen while it's being read (in full or in part) or discussed by the remote participant liaison and the presiding body (ICANN board, DNSO NC, whatever). For those of us who read faster than we listen -- not to mention those who retain written material better than that which we hear, and note that I understand this category to include most non-Native English speakers -- having a comment displayed on screen is a big advantage. Physical attendees have no such ability to control the screen when they make remote comments; while I guess a physical commentor could ask me to display a particular URL during his comment, and a few have done so over the past few meetings, social norms general desire to avoid complexity discourage same, so physical participants have no similarly-effective way to capture the power of the projection screen. * Online participants get their comments put in the online archive in text form -- searchable, presumably indexed by altavista all, translatable by babelfish and similar tools, and easily reviewed as needed by anyone with even a basic Lynx-only web connection. Physical participants get their comments put in the RealVideo, and since I understand that there's still no money for transcriptions (if anyone wants to donate the , though, I think it'd be great!...) and we have no (viable) Realvideo indexing/searching tools, comments by physical meeting attendees are, if not "lost" after the meeting, significantly harder to find on demand. So, for at least these two reasons and maybe others I haven't thought about, online commenters aren't "unambiguously worse off" than physical attendees. (Translation: There are plusses and minuses to each, and only a particular person's preferences among these tradeoffs determine which option is "better.") One more reason why I think reading complete remote comments outloud in their entirety doesn't make sense: Since so many of us read faster than we listen, it actually is somewhat "boring" to have a comment both displayed on screen and read outloud. Several physical attendees told me as much after the November meeting when we tended to read comments completely while also displaying them on screen. I thought they had a good point, and their concern fit well with another goal of mine, to generally keep the meetings fast-paced (as much to move through a long agenda as to prevent boredom, of course!). Finally, I guess I just don't quite understand what you would all suggest instead of excerpting and, in a major time crunch, summarizing. We're going to have a lot of remote comments, I expect. Too many to read all of in their entirety -- not enough hours in the meeting, and we certainly wouldn't want to start speed-reading outloud (mumbling, slurring syllables, etc.) which would surely hurt non-native speakers not to mention the simultaneous translators. Ultimately, I'm not at all convinced that it would be "better" (according to my own values, admittedly) to recognize forty remote comments in the course of the day for a minute each than a hundred for 20 seconds each, especially if we can properly capture the central point of each of the hundred comments. In short, facing limited time, I prefer giving everyone a little turn of remote participation, not of giving the first few in the virtual line an exceptionally big turn. All that said, I too don't like the idea of filtering comments. If we got a reasonable number of short, clear, non-overlapping comments, I'd certainly not be at all inclined to filter or excerpt in any way. To the extent that each of you can help on this front -- keeping messages as short as possible, rereading and editing messages to make them more clearly worded, not using the realtime comment submission system as a realtime chat (rather using the realtime chat for that purpose!) -- I
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Mark asked: (after I pointed out the value of having comments in writing) Yes, but aren't these screens going to be positioned so that they are facing the audience, and in effect, obscured from view by the BoD, or whatever body is running the meeting? It's important to remember that while comments made in these sessions are to a certain extent addressed to the entire room, they are directed at the persons sitting in the front of the room, facing the audience. The benefit of display is lost on those people, because they have their backs to the screen. They don't have the luxury of sitting and reading silently while the messages are summariezed to them. This is a pity, because they are the ones who must address the issues raised, and interpretation as well as presentation are part and parcel of that communicative effort. Nope. We agree that it's very important that the board members easily be able to see the screens, and we have acquired equipment to do so. Namely, we've got SVGA/XGA distribution boxes, cabling, and additional monitors placed in front of the board. To see what I mean, check out the pictures in the Berlin archive at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive, in particular pictures like http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/mmarchive/ICANN_Berlin/Meeting/ Board%5F5%2Ejpg. (There may be better pictures than this one; I'm on slow 'net and can't try many big .jpg's at the moment.) Thanks to the additional equipment, the board members most certainly can see the content on the projectors. (I note that we had a comparable, though slightly less refined, setup in Cambridge in November, though unfortunately sufficient monitors weren't readily available in Singapore so we couldn't use this setup at that meeting.) Ben Edelman
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Ellen suggested:
Appropriate first tier filters would be:
a) deferring off-topic comments
b) acknowledgikng one comment per individual per topic
c) curtailing long responses beyond 250 words.
These are a good start. Indeed, they're filters we definitely need and
absolutely intend to put in place through a combination of code and
discretion of the Berkman staff.
But what do we do if there just turn out to be too many comments that pass
these three criteria?
Some ideas off the top of my head:
* FIFO (first-in-first-out). We've got time for, say, eight remote comments
per agenda item. First six people to send their messages get read (say, in
their entirety), others go into the archive.
* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
subject, and he reads the ones that he thinks are most significant.
"Significant" is of course the tricky part -- he could look for views not
already stated by physical participants, but then the majority voice is
artificially weakened by his selection process so that doesn't seem quite
right. He could look for messages that seem most thought-provoking from an
academic perspective, but neither is that quite what we need. Yet if one
placed sufficient trust in Mr. Zittrain -- as I'll admit I personally do,
make no mistake about it -- this could be acceptable.
* Randomly, as Michael Froomkin suggested.
* Some other way, including perhaps some combination of the above. I do
like the idea of combining random selection with some other method -- say,
take seven messages selected by whatever process is used primarily, then one
random message from the remainder.
I really do think this is a hard problem. Personally, I'm totally
dissatisfied with the incentives of FIFO ("write early and you'll get
recognized, quality no matter"). But, I can understand why Moderator's
Choice isn't appealing to those who, for whatever reason, just don't trust
the particular individuals doing the job, perhaps preferring a system that
goes beyond the moral character of the staff involved.
I thought the mix of remote participation and physical participation at
the
Names Council meeting on June 25 worked fairly well, with a large screen
at
the front of the room. The pNC checked the screen occasionally, but
haphazardly. Fairness dictates building those checks into the physical
agenda every ten or fifteen minutes.
I'm not familiar with the particulars of the NC's remote participation, but
their methodology sounds reasonable. Yet realize that it's not so hard to
do remote participation a small, low-volume scale. Indeed, from my
recollections (admittedly just that, but I think likely reflected in the
comments on this list) of the remote participation on the DNSO and GAC
meetings on the first day of Berlin, things go well with remote
participation until some critical point of messages-received-per-minute is
reached. When below the threshold, it's easy to choose messages -- just
apply baseline criteria like the three Ellen suggested above, and indeed
that's what we did that first day.
But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose?
Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: It's been mentioned several times now that there would be some form of real-time chat available. However, there's no information on any such setup on the Berkman Center's pages. Should we just assume that comments will be dealt with in the same manner that they were in San Jose? Sorry to take so long to respond -- have been in transit to Chile for what seems like forever! First, a factual note: The Berkman Center wasn't involved with the 6/25 San Jose DNSO meeting except to provide webcasting support; we received an analog audio signal via a long-distance telephone call, and we made live and archived RealAudios of that (still accessible from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso if anyone is interested). But the DNSO Names Council handled its own remote participation for that meeting. What we'll have in Santiago is a refined version of the comment-submission system we provided in Singapore and Berlin. As http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago describes: "Online participants will be able to submit text comments in real-time. Questions and comments submitted over the Internet will be sent to technical staff present in the meeting room. Those real-time messages relevant to the topic currently being discussed will be processed by the moderator who will select certain messages for presentation to the assembled group for a response similar to that provided to a concern raised at a microphone in a QA session. All messages will be archived on this site." Note that the "real-time comment submission system" is different from the "real-time chat system." The latter is a simple unmoderated text chat -- an IRC chat, in some ways comparable to the ICQ or AOL Instant Messanger programs that some of you may be familiar with. It's something that many of you requested after Berlin, and we think hope it'll be helpful. But do note that comments made in the real-time chat area won't be reviewed by Berkman staff in Santiago -- there just aren't enough of us to go around! So, use the "comment submission system" to send "official" comments, and use the "chat" area to get a feel for who else is online, perhaps to debate ideas or see where other online participants stand on particular issues. But do realize that the real-space group may never see your "chat" messages -- although they will be archived and posted in the Santiago archive site that we'll be creating during the course of the week. I understand that these two features are somewhat confusing -- especially as I explain them now. But I think the interface we've prepared will do a reasonable job of making clear what's appropriate to use when... and if it isn't, specific suggestions are welcomed very much appreciated to the list or off-lits to me and John Wilbanks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
Re: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] icann.edleman.19990819 / Access to ICANN Santiago real video feed (fwd)
Planet Communications Computing Facility [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Privacy is a very important issue - on the net, to the consumer, and to government organizations in the free world. I certainly wouldn't disagree! But I think some clarification is in order; perhaps you overestimate the "intrusion" remote participation is alleged to make. The remote participation sign-in screen (which will become available shortly before the first webcast begins) asks for a total of six pieces of information: The first three go together in my mind: first name, last name, and company (if any). I understand that physical attendees of the Santiago meeting will be asked to provide this same information as a part of the sign-in process there. (This seems awfully reasonable to me... and I do recall at least the Geneva IFWP meeting doing the same.) It seems only reasonable that the same should be done online, and while a list of names and companies of remote participants will be posted as a part of the archive, I've never received a request not to be listed there, though I would fulfill such a request if I received it. Fourth, email address, which will be accompanied by the following disclaimer: "we will not share email addresses; however, we may use contact information obtained here to send announcements pertaining to remote participation in this meeting or future similar events." As I've received some feedback from prior remote participants thanking me for letting them know of upcoming ICANN public meetings, I'm inclined to continue collecting email addresses of remote participants for this purpose, especially as the field can be left blank by those who prefer not to receive such messages. Does anyone think this is a bad idea as currently implemented? Fifth, connection speed. Not disclosed to anyone outside the Berkman staff. (Currently used only for our informational purposes; it's important for us to know how many users access the webcast at what speed so that we can make the necessary arrangements for higher-bitrate webcasts in the future, if the data entered in this field suggests that high-bandwidth content would be usable by a significant number of participants.) Sixth, continent. Labeled optional in the sign-in form. May be disclosed in aggregate form (i.e. "60% of online participants were from outside North America") but not about any single participant as an individual. Intended use is to help us plan geographic locations of mirrored Realservers for increased performance stability in the future. If it turns out, say, that there are quite a few Asian users of the webcast, it's good for us to know as much so that we can arrange a Realserver there and thereby enhance the quality of the Asian audio and video feeds while reducing overall network utilization. I must say, I think these fields are exceptionally reasonable -- each justified for a legitimate logistical reason, with privacy policies clearly stated on the sign-in form itself. Nonetheless, if there are counterarguments re why the above should be done differently (or not at all, I suppose...), I'd be open to hearing them, on or off-list. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
Michael Froomkin wrote:
I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and
"summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of
comments of less than a page.
We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
you and David Post happen to submit comments that seem (to us!)
substantially the same or overlapping in part, it seems a good use of the
meeting's time for your agreement, along with any notable differences, to be
reported. ("Michael Froomkin and David Post both submitted comments noting
that... while Froomkin also went on to note ...") My goal in suggesting as
much is only one thing: to save meeting time, for it's expected that there
will be a time crunch in this meeting as in all prior sessions. So, while I
certainly agree that the sort of summarizing / grouping I propose is not
ideal -- that, in a perfect world we wouldn't have to do it at all -- I
think it's perhaps the lesser of two evils. Assuming we have some finite
number of minutes to give to remote participants, I'd just as soon use those
minutes in as intelligent a way as possible, considering similar thoughts
together not to diminish their importance but to make time for, say,
minority views.
I submitted a short comment, only to have
it reduced to two sentences, losing one of my two points.
I am sorry to hear this. Looking back on Berlin, I think one of the main
problems with remote participation was that the Berkman team wasn't doing
enough and that we were asking Esther to do so much that her job became
unmanageable. She was receiving, on a notebook screen next to her
microphone on the board table, the text of every substantive comment we
received, and they'd scroll by and she wouldn't have time to recognize them
and they'd be "lost." Not good! So this time we're doing it differently.
In particular, Berkman staff will manage the process by which a comment is
received, reviewed, and presented from end to end; assuming we receive
sufficient, relevant, on-topic messages, we'll have a Berkman person read at
least excerpts of at least x messages after every y physical speakers --
constants there still to be worked out, perhaps 2 after every 5. Esther
will be able to go back to what I think she really wanted to do all along --
listen, think, and respond -- without being distracted by way too much text
thrown at her. And the whole system will work a lot better.
That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
no comment can be longer than a length still to be decided but likely about
250 words. We don't intend to be mean about this -- but longer comments are
like a denial of service attack on other commenters, for the more time staff
spends reading one comment, the less is available for all others. So we'll
be asking -- and implementing code to enforce -- that all comments be less
than some fixed length. Second, just as I understand will now be the case
for physical attendees to the meeting, comments will generally be
one-per-customer-per-agenda-item. That's not to say follow-up questions
won't be permitted -- in the real meeting, I suppose that'll be at the
discretion of the chair. But in order to give everyone time to be
heard/read, it's crucial that a few individuals not submit half the
comments.
These changes may still not be sufficient to make the system work, but,
combined with some much streamlined tech on our end -- an improved database
structure for storing comments, an improved UI for managing them, etc. -- we
are hoping for significantly better results than in Berlin. Even so,
though, I'll readily admit that I remain worried about our ability to review
hundreds or even thousands of comments fast enough. It's hard, and we may
be pushed to our limits by the Santiago time zone (which puts this meeting
during the American day, unlike the Singapore or Berlin sessions). We shall
see.
Otherwise, how about having people in person also submit their comments in
writing on index cards and having them go into the same pot as the
e-mailed ones?
We're a step ahead of you. Had this in both Singapore and Berlin: a comment
system in the back of the meeting room at each of those meetings allowed
physical attendees to use a pared-down version of the remote comment
submission system, and there'll be a similar system this week. (Look in
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/comments0526.html for
messages with the designation "in-room" to see some of these comments
submitted in writing from the Berlin meeting room -- there aren't many, but
there are a few.) Non-native English speakers have told us this is very
helpful to them -- lets them communicate in writing rather than orally,
which some say is much more comfortable natural for them.
In conclusion: We're trying, folks! I'm working about as hard as I can
here -- did email for quite literally two hours a day while on "vacation"
the last two weeks. Have carried more
[IFWP] FW: icann real server at eastwood-b.prognet.com
I hadn't seen Jeff's forward to this list, so I neglected to post my response here. For those not on [EMAIL PROTECTED], here are details re what went wrong and how long the problem lasted. (With any similar problems during the next week, when I'll still be on vacation and reading the lists only sporadically, it would be best to send me private email, cc'ing John Wilbanks at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School -Original Message- From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 10:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Wilbanks; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: icann real server at eastwood-b.prognet.com As of 12:40 Pacific time, I'm assured that the server in question is back in operation. For those interested in the cause of the failure, I'm including the diagnosis I received from our contact at Real: "We're installing a RAID V system on Eastwood which will provide redundant backup capability and hot swapping in case of drive failure. To support the new RAID system, we needed to install a new Linux kernel. The kernel that was compiled and installed on Wednesday was missing support for IP aliasing. Without that support, Eastwood's secondary IP number which maps to "eastwood-b" did not function. Without eastwood-b, the 5.0 server died and could not be rebooted. The exact time of the failure was 2:34 p.m. Pacific time on 8/11." Jeff, thanks again for bringing this to our attention. Sorry to all for the outage. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org), which will take place in Santiago, Chile on August 24-26, 1999. Options for online participation will include a RealVideo webcast in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; a system for the submission of real-time comments directly to the meeting room itself; real-time scribe's notes; and real-time chat among online meeting participants. Basic participation in the meeting requires a 14.4Kbps or faster connection to the Internet and version 5.0 or later of the freely available RealMedia player, which can be downloaded from RealNetworks at http://www.real.com. Participation in the real-time chat requires either a JAVA-enabled browser or an IRC client. To participate remotely in the meetings or for obtain more information (including a FAQ, schedule, agenda, and technical details), go to http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] Suggestions Requested: Real-Time Chat Software or Sites
Among the most frequent requests after ICANN's Public Meetings in Berlin in
May was a centralized ("official") real-time chat site for online
participants to use to communicate with each other.
I'm prepared to make such an area available, but as yet no online chat
software has met my the requirements I believe are appropriate:
* Free, donated, or already owned by the Berkman Center. (IChat and Oreilly
Webboard fall into the last category.)
* Has a web interface to eliminate the nee for installation of an IRC or
other special-purpose client. (I worry that installation of such a program
would be too burdensome for non-technical users, and it'd likely be
impossible on shared computers.) JavaScript is OK, as far as I'm concerned,
being realistic about what client-side tech really is necessary for chat to
work.
* Is stable and reliable. (IChat might do the job except that it fails this
test, according to past Berkman experience with the product.)
* Allows direct access to the chat without a lengthy or unduly burdensome
registration routine. (Yahoo Chat is marginal in this respect, certainly
not as good as I'd like. Webboard is customizable, but I haven't yet made
as much progress as I'd like in reducing the number of clicks to get to the
actual chat room.)
* Multitasks readily, allowing the RealPlayer and (another session of the)
web browser to run at the same time.
* Provides a complete, easily-readable log of the chat session.
Do people agree that these are appropriate criteria? Are they too
restrictive, or too broad?
Any suggestions on software that meets this criteria? I'd be happy to use a
free web-based service like Yahoo Chat; to link to a Chat server hosted by
any entity that makes reasonable assurances of equal access, service
availability, etc.; or even to install additional software on our NT server
if necessary. But at the moment I'm not thrilled with any of the options
I've found so far, and while Yahoo Chat or Webboard (among many others!)
might certainly do the job, I'd like to think there's something better out
there.
Comments and suggestions on or off-list, as appropriate.
Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School
[IFWP] Announce: Webcast of 7/28 Judiciary Hearings
The Berkman Center has received permission to webcast this Wednesday's hearing entitled "Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property Rights" in The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Courts Intellectual Property. To listen to the webcast, go to http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events shortly before the 10:00AM Eastern start of the hearing. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
RE: [IFWP] Announce: Webcast of 7/28 Judiciary Hearings
As linked from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events, there's the Witness List at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ct0728.htm and the general Judiciary Committee schedule at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm which links to the Subcommittee's page at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm which has a news advisory (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/na072699.htm) and "in brief" introductory text (http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ib072699.htm). Hope this is helpful. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IFWP] Announce: Webcast of 7/28 Judiciary Hearings Ben Edelman a écrit: The Berkman Center has received permission to webcast this Wednesday's hearing entitled "Internet Domain Names and Intellectual Property Rights" in The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Courts Intellectual Property. What is the URL for info on the hearing? Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (212)846-7482Fax: (603)754-8927
[IFWP] Announcement: Hearing Audio Archive Scribe's Notes
As of several hours ago, the audio archive of this morning's hearing of the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is available online at the Berkman Center's ICANN-Related Events page, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events. I've also just uploaded some notes I took in the meeting -- as if I were scribing the meeting on a large screen, though I had only my notebook and no LCD projector this time. Thus, they're not at all authoritative, but I thought they might be helpful to some. The notes are available via a link from the URL above. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] DNSO Names Council Teleconference Webcast
Today's DNSO Names Council teleconference is now taking place, available via RealAudio at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso. Archives will be available immediately after the conclusion of the teleconference. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] Experimental Cross-Registrar WHOIS
Currently it seems that there is no single authoritative WHOIS. Rather, each registrar keeps its own data of its own registrants. This makes it difficult to figure out whether a domain is truly available for registration, so we've rigged up a search system to simultaneously query all operating testbed registrars for information about a given domain. The system is totally experimental -- perhaps it has bugs we don't know about, it's certainly a little sluggish, and the formatting still leaves something to be desired. We may not keep it up in the long term, but at least for now we think it may be helpful. I welcome any comments (on- or off-list) about the script, interface, or concept in general. In particular, I'm interested in other Testbed Registrars that are already accepting registrations and have WHOIS data available about their registrations; if anyone knows of additional such registrars, please send details. The Experimental Cross-Registrar WHOIS is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/whois. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
Re: [IFWP] Board Resolution on Constituencies
Although ICANN hadn't asked the Berkman Center to record meetings of the DNSO Constituency Groups, we had a bit of audio recording equipment with us in Berlin, so on the morning of the DNSO Constituency Meetings, we attempted to record those meetings as staff time and equipment availability allowed. Unfortunately our handheld audio recorders made inadequate recordings of the proceedings in most rooms, but in fact the non-commercial constituency was the one group for which we obtained a decent recording. I must pause to mention the significant caveats: the recording has brief gaps where tapes were changed; some sections are inaudible; there's no recording of the meetings after lunch (when I understand that the NCDNHC continued to meet); and it's possible that the recording may be out of order (i.e. it's possible that the tape-sides were digitized in the wrong order; I put some effort into verifying that I have the order correct, but with the gaps it can be hard to tell; comments/suggestions/calls for correction welcome via on or off-list). But the recording is available, in RealAudio as always, from a link on http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/may25.html. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School Michael Sondow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Kent Crispin a écrit: You were not there. You were not present at any of the discussions. You know absolutely nothing of what went on.
Re: [IFWP] Berlin, yesterday's mood 27 May
Joop wrote: The hotel where the Board and those on expense accounts stay, costs over 350 DM per night, yet no internet connectivity at all was available to the conference participants, who had to find a cybercafe far away to report to their constituents who could not physically be there. The Berkman Center had a couple computers available immediately after meetings that some people used for checking email via web accounts (hotmail, yahoomail, etc.). We certainly didn't have enough for everyone or for anyone to use for very long, but we would have been happy to let you use what we had for a reasonable amount of time. Sorry that didn't work out. When I made the presentation for the idno constituency, no printout could be made of the constituency's charter and the request to display the charter on the overhead screen was not met. A technical hiccup, or deliberate? Certainly not deliberate. I recall displaying the URL that you requested on the second screen. (Something in http://www.democracy.org.nz, as I recall.) Had you paused your presentation to instruct me to show a different page instead, I would have been happy to do so, and would have done the same for any other presenter who asked as much. Printing was difficult for all of us because we didn't have an adequate printer available. (The one we had was very slow and a bit unreliable, while the business center wasn't as responsive as we might have liked.) ICANN staff also had printing problems at times -- so I'd definitely not call that deliberate.
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN's Berlin Meeting
a separate threaded messaging system (yes, potentially hosted on our NNTP server) other than the real-time comment submission system? If the real-time chat is to be integrated with the meeting, how do you propose we do so given the constraints of the length of the meeting, limited computer availability, etc.? Ben Edelman
RE: [IFWP] Today's ICANN's Berlin Meeting (Wedesday)
Ken Freed wrote: As with most of us participating online (awake since 6 am in Denver), I felt frustrated at never hearing our comments mentioned except as something that would be read aloud at some future point. But the point never came, the momentum in the room being too robust, (to be kind, out of sight, out mind), and we mostly were left out. I share your frustration, Ken -- after getting so many serious, substantive, on-topic comments, it seemed tragic not to be able to respond to each in turn. Ideally there would be no time constraints in the ICANN Open Meetings, but, even so, the discussion around the remote comments that were recognized was so time-effective as to make recognition of additional comments pretty attractive, I would think. At the same time, I remain inclined to defer to Esther's judgement -- what do I know about moderating meetings?!? -- but, that said, I agree that we can do better next time. Realize, though, that the comments during Tuesday's DNSO GA and GAC meetings, also during the morning part of Wednesday's Open Meeting (before some 50+ of you Americans, mostly, woke up!), were recognized pretty consistently by the moderators -- and a careful listen through the RealVideo archive should reflect as much. At the Santiago meeting, it would be good to have a second screen in the conference room, set aside for constant display of online comments. We -- Wendy, Jonathan, and I -- have spent some time thinking about how these meetings could be made more inclusive, particularly with the help of the 'net to bring in those who can't attend. Using a second screen was an idea that came out of the November meeting, and indeed we had a secondary display both in Singapore in March and at Berlin's meetings. That said, the mere presence of a second screen doesn't solve all problems. In particular, we're concerned that it's too distracting to display remote comments (potentially pretty serious thought-provoking messages) while someone is talking, whether giving a presentation or asking or responding to a question. So we're not all that thrilled by the prospect of flashing remote comments on a second screen, and when we tried that out at several points during the meetings of the last couple days, we didn't get much response (though perhaps the real problem was that no one noticed?). I'm coming to think that recognizing large volumes of remote comments is actually a somewhat tricky problem. When we are receiving only a few remote comments at a time, it works fine to send them to the moderator via a text messaging system (basically a real-time chat). But the moderator gets overwhelmed, understandably, when we send lots of messages at once. We don't want the technical staff to process messages -- screening out the "can you turn up the audio" and "you spelled 'the' wrong" is about as much editing as I feel comfortable with. We may yet end up with a secondary screen displaying comments through some sort of an automated process (say, each message gets thirty seconds on screen, then it automatically advances to the next message). But I remain interested in other approaches to the problem. Suggestions? Anyone in the room or away can comment about what they see online [reloading the page often]. Judging from our hit logs, at least some remote participants refreshed the remote comments page pretty frequently (every minute or so, for some of them). This was as intended -- we thought you'd figure that out, though perhaps we should have put an explicit suggestion on the page suggesting the frequent use of the Refresh button. Think greater global interactivity, participatory management. Democracy. Agreed in principle, but can you be more specific? Concrete suggestions like "use two video cameras and an a/b switcher to avoid the distracting panning in the video feed" (something we thought about for this meeting but didn't do because of cost) or "put comments on a second screen" are extremely helpful and carefully considered, I'd like to think. Oh, until a minute ago, while I was writing this note (while the moment is fresh), I was listening to after-meeting conversations rumbling near the microphone staying delightfully open awhile, as the real meeting began... Indeed. Sorry we didn't leave it up longer for you. (The bad link mentioned in another message to this list is fixed as of late last night.) Ben Edelman
Re: [IFWP] ICANN is multi-lingual
Indeed, we're doing our best to make our content available in many languages. It's tricky, though: To have an "official" translation would require that we somehow review it for style and substance -- that we make sure that it's really a fair and accurate translation of the original. At least with Altavista's Babelfish there's no such presumption -- everyone knows it's machine-translated (on the fly, at that). Far from perfect, I'll admit, but very easy from our perspective (just add the appropriate URLs pointing to the Babelfish servers) and potentially quite helpful, we think, to those who happen not to speak English. Comments on the extent to which this is helpful? Better than nothing? A decent start? Or not? I've found it handy in a pinch. For example, I've gotten a few email inquiries re remote participation from people who don't speak English; using Babelfish, I've at least been able to read their messages and respond in their respective languages, as well as provide a link to translated copies of the remote participation announcement page. BTW, this actually isn't new (to us): we used the same technique in the meeting archive of the January Representation in Cyberspace Study (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/). Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School Eric Weisberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I just noticed the following links on the bottom of the ICANN Berlin Meeting page http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/ Berkman Center for Internet Society | Translate This Page
Re: [IFWP] ICANN comment process
Ellen, As the person at the Berkman Center responsible for running much of the equipment that will allow remote participation in next week's Open Meeting (and meeting of the DNSO General Assembly), I thought I'd do my best to respond to some of the concerns you raise below. You're certainly right that participation in the meeting will require being awake at odd hours of the morning for people in many parts of the world. With the open meeting starting at 3:00 in the morning in US Eastern time on May 26, it'll undoubtedly be a rough night for those of you who resolve to participate remotely. I wish there were some way I could help -- but ICANN is committed, indeed bound by its bylaws, to hold meetings in a variety of geographic areas. No matter where they hold a meeting, it's halfway around the world from somewhere!, so I guess all I can say is that I hope you and many others will nevertheless make the effort to join the meeting despite the hour. Back to things I can help with, some thoughts on the resources required to participate remotely. We've made special efforts to keep the hardware, software, and bandwidth requirements as low as possible -- using a 6.5Kbps audio stream (perfectly acceptable over a 9600bps modem link!) for example. I too am concerned that users with certain kinds of 'net access (terminal accounts, for example) will be unable to access the feed. But I know of no way to broadcast live audio over the Internet to a user with only telnet access (or with an exceptionally old or obscure OS or CPU that just doesn't run modern mainstream software), so I'm left with the solution already proposed. Regarding remote participation, you noted that: "it is still unclear how one can participate in real time through the Internet, how ICANN will handle such submissions." From my experience accepting remote comments at prior meetings -- the November 14 Public Meeting, the January 23 Representation in Cyberspace Study Workshop, and the March 3 Open Meeting -- here's some more information re the procedure by which remote comments are received and processed: An interested user sends a comment from a web page form we'll link to from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin once the meeting starts. Within 60 seconds (generally somewhat less), a technical staff person in the meeting room receives the message. If it's substantive and on-topic, it's printed and handed to the moderator (Esther). The moderator then decides how to recognize the remote comment, generally asking technical staff to display the message on a projection screen in the meeting room and reading the message outloud, then providing a response comparable to what might be given to an oral comment posed at a microphone in the room. I should note that all substantive remote comments are posted online as a portion of the meeting archive, as on http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/archive/RealTime-comments .html. Those who want to see exactly how this process works in practice can review the proceedings of the November meeting (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/archive/index.html) and RCS workshop (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs). In November, the moderators recognized several substantive real-time comments, and in January we took a number of additional comments from the web. (Unfortunately there were no on-topic substantive comments submitted during the Singapore meeting in March, but had there been any, we had the infrastructure in place to get them to the moderator for presentation to the group and a response.) I don't know off the top of my head at exactly which minutes in the audio or video archives remote comments were received, but I'll try to gather such data tomorrow and provide links directly to those segments. In the meantime, I hope the above is helpful in providing additional guidance re how the system operates. Finally, something personal (speaking solely as myself, not as a representative of BCIS or ICANN, though I suspect many people at both organizations might agree): I'm genuinely a fan of remote participation. But I've personally been disappointed in the past by the exceptionally low number of remote comments received. So, I sincerely hope that the upcoming Open Meeting will see a greater volume of online comments to reflect what I believe is the true power of the medium. I'd consider online participation a great success if a few dozen of you stayed up all night to send the ICANN board and assembled group your comments in real-time, and I sincerely hope a significant number of interested people will do so. If you or others have additional questions about remote participation or related issues, you should of course feel free to pose them either on this list or via private email as you prefer. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School Ellen Rony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I think it is very
[IFWP] ICANN-Berlin Remote Participation
For those unable to attend the May 26 Berlin Open Meeting in person, ICANN has arranged to provide live audio and video feeds over the Internet; there will also be a provision for realtime remote participation. For more information about the live feeds and remote participation in the Open Meeting, please see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] Singapore MAC Open Meeting Remote Participation Update
A final confirmation: It will be possible to listen to tomorrow's Membership Advisory Committee Open Meeting via live audiocast and to participate by submitting real-time text comments. Enter the real-time participation area via: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/ The Membership Open Meeting will take place on March 2 from 10:00AM to 4:00PM; in GMT, that's 2:00AM to 8:00AM on March 2, and in Eastern US time that's from 9:00PM on March 1 to 3:00AM on March 2. (Note the above correction to the times expressed in Eastern time; the prior message was incorrect.) Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[IFWP] ICANN-Singapore Remote Participation Update
For those of you planning to participate remotely in the Singapore Open Board Meeting and/or in the Membership Open Meeting, here's an update on where we stand. Regarding the times of the meeting: The Open Board Meeting will take place on March 3 from 9:00AM to 5:30PM Singapore time. In GMT, that's 1:00AM to 9:30AM on March 3; in Eastern US time, that's 8:00PM on March 2 to 4:30AM on March 3. The Membership Open Meeting will take place on March 2 from 10:00AM to 4:00PM; in GMT, that's 2:00AM to 8:00AM on March 2, and in Eastern US time that's from 9:00PM on March 2 to 3:00AM on March 3. At the moment we still don't have on-site access, so we haven't yet been able to do testing of the internet connection, audio system, etc.; therefore, I cannot yet guarantee the availability of a feed. However, all of our equipment has arrived in Singapore in working order, and I anticipate that we will know what's available by at least twelve hours before the start of each meeting. Expect a revised announcement posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] by that time, and I'll update http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399 as well. Thank you all for your patience and understanding. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School
[ifwp] Re: Active members of the list
Jonathan Zittrain [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Could someone easily generate a report of how many different people have posted to the list over a given period of time--say, the past three months, or since last August--and with what frequency? Certainly! I've just tabulated more or less what you asked about and posted it on http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/listanalysis . One tidbit that caught my eye as I ran the numbers: The following twenty people collectively posted 1225 messages to the list since 12/15/98, while the other 57 posters to the list collectively contributed 274 messages. jeff Williams 256 Michael Sondow 140 Roeland M.J. Meyer 105 William X. Walsh77 Richard J. Sexton 77 Karl Auerbach 69 Christopher Ambler 65 Kent Crispin60 Roberto Gaetano 60 Gordon Cook 38 Greg Skinner38 Joop Teernstra 35 Jay Fenello 33 Milton Mueller 31 Dave Crocker29 Bob Allisat 26 Patrick Greenwell 24 Einar Stefferud 21 Jim Dixon 21 susancho20 For a complete listing of participating individuals, including the number and size of posts from each person, as well as for information about posts going back to 7/30/98, please see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/listanalysis. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
[ifwp] Re: Usenet is a slow moving parody of itself - Steve Bellovin
Apologies for a completely non-substantive post, but I think it's appropriate to clear up the apparent confusion about the contents of the Berkman Center NNTP server. Greg listed seven of the groups on our server. There are three more: we also host NNTP archives of the MAC list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as well as open-rsc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and poised ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- see IFWP.MAC-archive, IFWP.open-rsc-archive, and IFWP.Poised-Archive, respectively. All are accessible via anonymous NNTP to cyber.law.harvard.edu. The majority of our NNTP groups are simply read-only mirrors of the IFWP list; therefore have no original content whatsoever. Therefore, those of you who for some reason can't connect to our NNTP server should simply subscribe to the groups via email as usual. (I must note the special cases of IFWP.Powers and IFWP.Structure: These two groups were created after the Geneva meeting this summer but do not contain any content; although we created these groups for public discussion of the corresponding issues, expecting original discussion in these forums, they have never been used. Therefore, it is completely accurate to say that all content available on our NNTP server is also accessible through standard listserv subscriptions.) Regarding the newsgroup names, I decide on newsgroup names when I create the NNTP mirror of each public listserv, and the groups are internal to our news server rather than propagated to the entirety of Usenet. Given Dejanews's policy of indexing only standard Usenet, not private servers, it's not in the slightest bit surprising that Dejanews doesn't have the groups. Nonsubstantive questions about the NNTP server are welcome via email or, if thought to be of general interest, on-list. Ben Edelman Berkman Center for Internet and Society Harvard Law School Greg Skinner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]... "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't buy it. Dejanews takes all groups and make sthem available over the web. If they aren't maing a group available, just ask them to add it, If the don't respond, let me know and I'l pull in a favour. The server at cyber.law.harvard.edu is only carrying these groups: IFWP IFWP.Powers IFWP.Structure: IFWP.Law: IFWP.General: IFWP.Discussion-Draft: IFWP.Domain-Policy-Archive: I checked DejaNews, and they don't have any of these. I did not mean to get in a flame war with you over this. I was just pointing out that not everyone can access these newsgroups. --gregbo __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END __ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END
