[IFWP] Fwd: The final official press release on new ICANN/NSI/DOC deal
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:47:17 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: The final official press release on new ICANN/NSI/DOC deal >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > > >ICANN, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc., Announce >Tentative Agreements >on Future of Domain Name System > >(Marina del Rey, CA) -- The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >Numbers (ICANN) announced today that it had tentatively reached a set of >agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Network Solutions, Inc. >(NSI), to resolve outstanding differences among the three parties. > >The agreements have been posted for a thirty-day public comment period on >the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/agreements.htm and will come >before the Board for final consideration at its November meeting. > >"The ICANN Board is pleased that the lengthy negotiations over these issues >have produced a workable structure based on compromises by all sides," said >Esther Dyson, Interim Chairman of the ICANN Initial Board. "Our next step is >to consider the input of the engineers, businesses, academics, individual >users and other interested parties that make up the worldwide Internet. We >look forward to welcoming Network Solutions as an ICANN accredited registrar >and to working with them and the community to develop consensus policies >regarding the management of the Domain Name System." > >The agreements consist of: (1) a Registry Agreement between ICANN and NSI; >(2) a revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement between ICANN and all >registrars in .com, .net, and .org; (3) a revised post-testbed >Registrar-License and Agreement between NSI as registry and registrars; (4) >an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement between the Department of Commerce >and NSI; and (5) an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the >Department of Commerce and NSI. > >Among the key provisions set forth in the agreements: > >--NSI will recognize ICANN and agree to operate the .com, .org and .net >registries in accordance with the Registry Agreement between ICANN and NSI >and future consensus policies adopted by ICANN. > >--NSI agrees to become an ICANN accredited registrar for the .com, .org, and >.net domains. The ICANN accreditation agreement has been revised to include >improvements suggested by registrars during the testbed phase. > >--NSI has agreed to participate in the funding of ICANN through registry and >registrar fees, provided that they are equitably apportioned. > >--All accredited registrars (including NSI) will be required to provide >continued public access to "WHOIS" data. > >--The InterNIC website will be maintained as a public information site with >a directory of links to accredited registrars. > >"Today's agreements signal the end of the months of uncertainty which have >limited ICANN's ability to address its responsibilities," said Mike Roberts, >ICANN's Interim President & CEO. "Subject to the comments of the global >Internet community, the staff and I look forward to working with the Board >and the community to implement these agreements." > >About ICANN: >The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the >non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP >address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, and domain name >system management functions now performed under U.S. Government contract by >IANA and other entities. > ># # #
[IFWP] from IP ICANN and IBM
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 05:51:29 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: ICANN and IBM >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >[please note this is from John Patrick from IBM not me (some IPers >assume everything they read comes from me :-) djf] > > >Dave, recently there has been a lot of discussion about ICANN and the role >IBM plays in the organization's efforts. A lot of what I have read is >inaccurate and I'd like to use this posting to clarify what's really going >on. > >Let me start with my strong belief -- shared by IBM, government leaders >and many technology organizations -- that the Internet is rapidly becoming >the global medium. Not a medium. *The* medium. We already see that >e-business is dependent on the Internet, and we're starting to see people >around the world relying on it for education, disease management, >entertainment, real-time communications and collaboration, and even >government services, to name just a few uses. In fact, it's hard to see >what won't be dependent on the Internet. So what makes the Internet work >and who is responsible to ensure it will continue working in the future as >the growth continues? That's the role that ICANN was designed to play. > >We all know that when you type "www.myfavoritewebsite.com," it has to be >translated to an all-numeric address that the Internet infrastructure >understands. Because the Internet is made up of many heterogeneous and >separately-managed networks, the early Internet inventors and pioneers >realized that a central third party was needed to manage the assignment of >domain names and network addresses so that "www.myfavoritewebsite.com" >always translated to the correct address, even though different users >would consult different servers to do the translation. > >And because most of the early Internet development happened under U.S. >Government auspices, that central third party was originally designated by >the US government. But now that the Internet is a global entity, there is >broad agreement that having one country be the ultimate authority is >inappropriate. In fact, it's clear that the central third party needs to >be a global, non-profit, private-sector organization. And, after a long >and public design process, ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned >Names and Numbers) was created to fill that role. IBM was one of the >many private sector organizations that chose to provide input into the >design process, and we felt then, as we do now, that a neutral, global, >non-profit organization is the right choice to oversee the administration >of Internet domain names. > >Once the ICANN charter was recognized by the U.S. and the European >governments, the organization was quickly recognized as the legitimate >manager of the domain names and numbers by more than 40 countries and many >of the major private sector organizations with an interest in this area. >The Internet Society, International Chamber of Commerce, Internet >Engineering Task Force, U.S. Council for International Business, >International Trademark Association, Global Internet Project, World Wide >Web Consortium, and all of the Internet IP address registries (APNIC, >RIPE, ARIN, etc) are just a few of the organizations that have publically >supported ICANN. > >So who pays for ICANN? ICANN depends on fees charged to users of its >services. But those fees will not be determined or charged until ICANN >has a permanent board which will determine the appropriate fee structure. >Right now, ICANN is in "start-up" mode, with an acting board of directors, >and no income. As a result, transitional funding has been necessary. > >Toward that end, there have been some private sector organizations and >companies that have stepped up to help out. The Global Internet Project >(GIP) initiated a fund-raising program in July 1998, and raised >approximately $400,000. (Note: I am the chairperson of the GIP.) Also, >MCI and Cisco have made loans or loan guarantees to ICANN. IBM has >announced (see following link to letter) a $100,000 grant. >http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ibm-letter-24sept99.htm There are many >others that have contributed and ICANN has posted the names >of these donors on their Web site at http://www.icann.com. Considering the >support for ICANN in the industry, I expect more >companies will help with funding during this transitional period. > >Some people have questioned whether there needs to be an organization >managing the administrative hierarchy; they'd like to see it handled by >some distributed self-managing approach. And perhaps such an approach >could work *if* we wer
[IFWP] As sent to my IP list Would the U.S. Government regulate theInternet? And how will this come about? by Richard J. Solomon
[Richard J. Solomon is the Chief Scientist of the UPenn Center for Communications Technology and Policy and the co-author with Lee McKnight and Russell Neuman of The Gordian Knot: Gridlock on the Information Highway (MIT Press, 1997) Would the U.S. Government regulate the Internet? And how will this come about? "Richard J. Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've answered the first question already: it is naïve to think that the Federal Government (not to mention the other 191 world governments) won't impose regulations on the Net, and it is naïve to think that any such infrastructure with the threat to completely influence society and change power relationships - as advertised by the Net's own hypists and promoters - can possibly avoid entanglements with the Government. To think that cyberspace doesn't follow the rules of political power as demonstrated over centuries of human civilization is to exhibit a complete ignorance of history and social behavior. The rules are quite simple, though the execution is always very complex: 1) as in nature, power abhors a vacuum; 2) all politics is local (sic, Tip O'Neil), especially democratic politics. That stated, I first offer a disclaimer before addressing the second question of how (& when): I do not necessarily think that government regulation is always to the good, nor knowing how complex and all-embracing web technology is (and will become even more so) do I think that regulation will work to achieve either the goals of government or the public interest. There will be many cases of enacting Laws of Unintended Consequences - indeed with the Telecom Act of 1996, we have some good instances of that already. The problem as I read history is that you often get what you don't want if you ignore the problems (whether you get what you need is moot). What, then, is the historical evidence for regulatory inevitability? And how may these parallels and precedents evolve for something admittedly as unique as internetted digital processors? In the United States federal influence over infrastructure was anticipated right from the beginning, with the Commerce Clause in the Constitution reserving certain powers to the central government which affect interstate commerce. Control of the currency was one of them, with the clear understanding that monetary devices can make or break a union. Only the Federal government may coin value - e-currency notwithstanding. My best guess is of all the things that can bring Federal oversight of the Net, things that have to do with creating and capturing intrinsic value will be the straw that breaks - either e-money, or gambling, or stock market Ponzi schemes, or the right to tax. But there are more powerful historical scenarios. I will describe in brief take four relevant cases, three leading to regulatory intervention and one which delayed significant governmental intervention, but finally succumbed. All exhibit the two basic principles of filling a power vacuum and locality. The railroads began as small-scale, quasi-governmental/private businesses. As scale increased to meet demand these hybrid entities ran into financing constraints. The general solution was to privatize these nascent firms to raise capital, which as an unforeseen consequence created new forms of private monopoly powers, new centers for monopoly rents, and led to other more insidious practices. Yet these new cartels, with unrestricted ability to hike rates and control traffic, still would not risk capital for frontier infrastructure - so they lobbied for land-grants and cash handouts from the Federal and state governments, leading to further abuses of the public purse, bribery, corruption, and a pretty awful transportation mess by the late 19th Century. Countervailing powers eventually enabled government to rein in the railroads, power emanating from a complex "strange bedfellow" matrix of shippers, suppliers, farmers (more than 80% of the electorate in the 1880's), and even railroad magnates and financiers themselves. A few violent railroad wars, with real guns, and real deaths, may have helped convince more responsible railroad executives that stability and business practice moderation might be a win-win. Yet, attempts at self-regulation were an abysmal failure, so finally the national government was invited to act, though at first with a very light hand. But politics does not proceed in isolation -- before the Federal Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887 (forming a commission that initially had no real power except to collect data and publicize abuses), something else happened to alter the polity's mindset. A crisis was needed to change things. Its nature only indirectly concerning transport carries an important historical lesson for the evolution of infrastructure regulation, the Web included. In the late 1870s there were periods of famine in the growing metropoli of the Midwest, despite crop
[IFWP] As sent to my IP list -- IP: Parallel Processing Democracy
[ David Johnson is a partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering. He represents NSI but has been involved in the ICANN debate for some time in various capacities and offers this only as his personal opinion. djf] From: "Johnson, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'David Farber'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:50:30 -0400 Parallel Processing Democracy By: David R. Johnson >From the time of the Athenian agora, we've been coming together, in real time and real space meeting rooms, to do the public's business. Sure, there have always been "back channels." Most of the interesting deals may get done in the "cloak room." But Federalist 10 spent a lot of time defending the U.S. Constitution by explaining how to create a suitably sized "deliberative body" that might meet regularly, in person, stay free of dominating factions and, well, deliberate. As usual, the Net is about to change the way public business gets done. The key new thing is not that you can now send an email to your congresscritter -- she still won't read it. It's not even that the legislature can vote electronically (the new "digital signature" legislation was, reportedly, signed electronically and sent by email to the White House). The important change is that the real time, physical meeting room is dissolving away entirely. Our public dialogue will become a series of parallel electronic discussion threads. These will still involve "deliberation," will lead to important decisions, and will reflect our needs for collective action. But they won't be easily observed from a public gallery, can't readily be followed by the press, and don't integrate easily into the real time/real space public meetings that remain. Suitably, the new Internet governance system being created under the sponsorship of the Department of Commerce epitomizes the new problems posed by this partial virtualization of democratic debate. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is building a complex structure designed to engage experts and end users, service providers and public interest groups, in a search for consensus on how to deal with issues such as "cybersquatting" (registering a domain name in bad faith for the purpose of holding up a trademark owner). The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) of ICANN now meets, most of the time, online -- via endless, proliferating, discussion lists among subcommittees, councils, working groups, critics, constituencies, and a "general assembly." Unlike real world legislatures, this "General Assembly" of the DNSO (consensus among which is supposed to lead to ICANN policies) is an open body with no capitol building. It's only required to meet physically once a year -- an eternity between "meetings" in Internet time. Because it is open and meets infrequently, one insider recently suggested that the General Assembly should be defined as the Internet discussion list, conducting its business online. When the group meet in Santiago, Chile, most recently, fully half of those "in attendance" logged in electronically. There were some obvious problems with integrating an essentially online group with a meat space meeting. First, those actively engaged on the lists, where the real work does (or, often, doesn't) get done, had to spend lots of time reporting to the offline crowd about what had happened in all the online discussions. When it came time for questions from the floor, the half of the audience attending electronically had a hard time getting recognized. It's not easy, online, to raise your hand or shout out from the back of the room. When a "consensus" vote was called, the Chair forgot all about the online crowd and called for a show of hands, many of which were raised by students attending the meeting. The offline crowd couldn't tell whether those who couldn't afford to travel to Santiago had views differing systematically from those who could. The online meeting spaces created by ICANN's subgroups are having their own problems. Because Robert's Rules of Order don't map well to a discussion list, many feel all too few have much to much to say. Email filters can reduce time spent reading nonsense or flames. But the Net's low barriers to entry have increased noise levels -- and driven many responsible players away. The Board of ICANN almost never shows up for online meetings. Most never post, even though the substantive discussions online are among the best materials contributed to the dialogue -- far better, at their best, than anything offered at a real time meeting. The very notion of a "public" dialogue may change radically under the pressures and possibilities offered by the online world. Some press came to Santiago to
[IFWP] Business Group Sets Internet Proposals
> >Business Group Sets Internet Proposals > >By Neal Boudette, European Telecommunications Correspondent > > >PARIS (Reuters) - An industry group backed by some of the world's heaviest >hitting executives will unveil a set of proposals on regulating the Internet >Monday, all in the hope of making it easier to do business in cyberspace. > >The initiatives, providing guidelines for security, privacy, consumer >protection, taxation, liability and other issues, will be presented at a >meeting in Paris of the Global Business Dialog on Electronic Commerce (GBDe). > >They are intended to help governments and international trade organizations >iron out differences in laws and regulations that can crimp the explosion of >electronic commerce. > >But even the combined weight of companies such as America Online Inc, >DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM Corp, Time Warner Inc and Toshiba Corp are unlikely >to have much impact, analysts said. > >While the United States, Europe, and Asia will continue to clash, even the >thorniest issues are not really hindering the Internet revolution. Regulation >or not, e-commerce will keep on expanding, the analysts said. > >``I don't believe the absence of regulation has seriously impeded >e-commerce,'' said Ken Fraser at market researcher International Data Corp. >``There are things that make it a bit bumpy, but the road is open.'' > >Millions of consumers are not holding back because, for example, Europe has >not decided how to tax online purchases, or because the U.S. restricts >exports of powerful encryption technology, other analysts said. > >``I don't think consumers are waiting for concrete legislation,'' said >Caroline Sceats at Fletcher Research in London. ``These (e-commerce business) >models are going to carry on developing regardless of whether there are >regulations in place.'' > >Forecasts on e-commerce give no hint of stumbling blocks. According to >Forrester Research, online business trade in the U.S. alone is set to soar >to $1.3 trillion in 2003, from $43 billion in 1998. > >Nevertheless, the Paris meeting will highlight issues that major corporations >around the world are anxious to clear up -- without turning them over to >government and political bodies. > >``We are committing ourselves to creating a self-regulatory framework as well >as proposals for politicians,'' said Markus Payer, a spokesman for German >media giant Bertelsmann, whose chief executive is chairman of the GBDe. > >Formed in January, the GBDe includes more than 100 companies from all corners >of the globe. Along with Bertelsmann's Thomas Middelhoff, Time Warner Chief >Executive Gerald Levin and Fujitsu Ltd's Michio Naruto also serve as >co-chairman, providing representation at the top from Europe, the U.S. and >Japan. > >Walt Disney Co, Deutsche Bank, Nokia Oyj, and Japan's NEC Corp and NTT are >also among the group's members. > >The proposals will deal with at least eight areas where laws vary from >country to country, and can hinder online commerce. > >Yet no matter how well thought out, the GBDe initiatives still have to >contend with significant and often politically sensitive disagreements. > >For example, many countries want powerful encryption technology to be widely >available for protecting data on the Internet. But the U.S. bans export of >the latest software. It wants law enforcement authorities to have a key to >decode data used in drug dealing or money laundering. > >At the same time, Europe wants greater measures to protect personal >information on the Internet, while the U.S. so far has allowed the industry >to set its own guidelines. > >Even the GBDe recognizes the enormity of the task it is taking on. ``It won't >be final and finished Monday,'' said Payer, the Bertelsmann spokesman. ``The >effort will go on.''
[IFWP] Re: please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Gordon, I will try to outline such a set of concrete scenarios. It will take some time. I have no staff, it is the beginning of our term and I will take what time is necessary to do a good job. So don't expect it this week but I will do it soon. Dave At 3:27 PM -0400 9/10/99, Gordon Cook wrote: >Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one >point on which I STRONGLY disagree with it. > >>you say: If ICANN fails it >>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. > >Vint, Esther, John and other have said the same thing.the >internet will be in danger, ecommerce will fail, etc is the >additional undertone that has gone along with these warnings from >senior net people. > >Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if >you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just >be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own >opinions which is just a different way of saying to you: please >be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make. > >In the absence of such reasoned debate there are far too many other >reasons to read into what then begins to look like the self-serving >nature of what's going on. > >So look Dave. Do us a favor and let us know in detail *WHY* you >fear what happens will be so much worse than ICANN. Myself - I >cannot imagine what could be worse. Dyson, Cerf, Roberts, Patrick >are pushing their own agenda pedal to the floor and are doing it in >such a way as to rigg things so that participation of other people >with other ideas is done in such a way as to render anything but the >ICANN party line irrelevant. Government has requirements for >openess and accountability that have been neatly and tidily >surgically removed from ICANN. How can you not realize this? How >can you keep defending them? Give us substance and not assertions >please. > > > > > > >>Gordon, >> >>My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as >>devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were >>not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor >>did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover >>of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings >>and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find >>solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated >>world -- it is hard. >> >>Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it >>was not for trying. >> >>I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just >>can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >>something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >>must make it work. >> >> >> >>MY OPINION, >> >>Dave > > >The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report >431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com >(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - >[EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control >the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml >
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Many thanks, yes yes yes At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote: >It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently >exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet >self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may >fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the >result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US >seem to employ that favor big businesses. > >--gregbo
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
I have no argument on this Let us VOTE and push them hard till we get the vote. Seems to me I remember something like a cry "no taxation with out representation" side issue, lobbyists win because they spend time and energy in preparing cases and actionable proposals not because hey shoot up everything. (most of the time the money they may cause to get contributed is secondary to this careful spade work) dave At 12:01 PM -0700 9/10/99, Frank Rizzo wrote: >At 2:50 PM -0400 9/10/99, David Farber wrote: >>I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just >>can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >>something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >>will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >>we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >>must make it work. > >Dave, it may not be for "bad or evil" purposes. I agree with you >here. But, things are being done for self-serving big-business >purposes. It's just sad that we have ICANN being bought out by >high-priced lobbyists (not unlike our own government) but we don't >have the mechanism to vote the bastards out of of office. > >Let us vote!! > >-rizzz
[IFWP] Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical rolein enabling ICANN
Gordon, My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated world -- it is hard. Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it was not for trying. I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We must make it work. MY OPINION, Dave
[IFWP] Fwd: IP: ICANN and what it is
> >Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:09:02 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: IP: ICANN and what it is >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>To: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson) >>Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:18:26 -0400 >> >>WHy does it need to be ICANN itself who does this? Does no one else have >>the right to correct misconceptions? >> >>Regardless, may I please ask you on behalf of ICANN to avoid the use of >>oversight in referring to ICANN outside of direct quotes? (By all means >>please send this to the list.) >> >>Thanks, >>Esther >> >>At 09:30 pm 08/28/1999 -0400, David Farber wrote: >> >At 4:57 PM -0700 8/28/99, Anon wrote: >> >>I know the press refers to ICANN as the "Internet Oversight Board" but >> >>that's a horrible misconception that causes trouble. For example, >> >>the ICANN does not oversee Internet Standards (that's IETF business) >> >>nor most aspects of managing the Internet (that's done by NANOG >>if anyone). >> > >> >and >> > >> >At 4:57 PM -0700 8/28/99, anon wrote: >> >>So can I ask that in the future, even if the article says "oversight" >> >>you refrain from using the term in your forwarded messages :-) >> > >> > >> >My standard reply is no one from ICANN has taken the initiative to >> >take the press to task for such misunderstanding . When they do I >> >will forward it to IP and with all other such misperceptions >> > >> >Dave >> > >> > >> >> >>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! >>chairman, EDventure Holdings >>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>1 (212) 924-8800 >>1 (212) 924-0240 fax >>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) >>New York, NY 10011 USA >>http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org >> >>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest >>PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona >>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
