[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Due to your inspiration, I went to see what I could find, even tho the search interface at icann.org is broken, and the bylaws at ~/about/bylaws- Nevertheless, I persevered: the draft minutes of the board meeting of 31 March (at http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes- 31mar99.htm ) mention the amendment of Article VI, and refer to http://www.icann.org/minutes/3_31exhibitB.htm The relevant text of "Exhibit B" is: ARTICLE VI-A: THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION [Reserved.] In my abysmal ignorance, I beg your indulgence once again: where is the *intended function of the ASO specified? What are the pressing questions an ASO will be expected to take up? kerry BTW, is there a documentary record of why the IANA draft bylaws which read "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board, except that these Bylaws shall not be amended until the earlier of (i) June 1, 1999, or (ii) such date as all three Supporting Organizations described in Section 3(A) of Article VI have been formed, and Directors nominated by them have been seated..." were put in final form as "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Corporation may be altered, amended, or repealed and new Bylaws adopted only upon action by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all members of the Board." ? = Kent wrote: It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address Supporting Organization in Santiago. Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at- large membership? Yes.
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
On Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:59:27PM +, Kerry Miller wrote:
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Due to your inspiration, I went to
see what I could find, even tho the search interface at icann.org is
broken, and the bylaws at ~/about/bylaws-
Sorry -- I was under the impression that you had been involved in
this discussion for some time -- the Address Supporting Organization
has been an integral part of the the ICANN structure since before
there was an ICANN -- Postel proposed three supporting organizations
a long time ago. Note that the White Paper is about "Management of
Internet Names and ADDRESSES". Note the first of the IANA tasks
listed in the White Paper, *before* the listing of DNS:
1) Assignment of numerical addresses to Internet users.
Every Internet computer has a unique IP number. IANA, headed by
Dr. Jon Postel, coordinates this system by allocating blocks of
numerical addresses to regional IP registries (ARIN in North
America, RIPE in Europe, and APNIC in the Asia/Pacific region),
under contract with DARPA. In turn, larger Internet service
providers apply to the regional IP registries for blocks of IP
addresses. The recipients of those address blocks then reassign
addresses to smaller Internet service providers and to end users.
Here's some text from an earlier version of the ICANN bylaws:
Section 3. DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
(a) There shall at least be the following Supporting Organizations:
(i) The Address Supporting Organization shall be composed of
representatives from regional Internet address registries and others
with legitimate interests in these issues, as determined by the Address
Supporting Organization consistent with Section 2 of this Article and
approved by the Board. The Address Supporting Organization shall create
an Address Council to make recommendations to the Board regarding the
operation, assignment and management of Internet addresses and other
related subjects;
(ii) The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall be composed of
representatives from name registries and registrars of top-level
domains ("TLDs"), businesses and any other entities that are users of
the Internet and others with legitimate interests in these issues, as
determined by the Domain Name Supporting Organization consistent with
Section 2 of this Article and approved by the Board. The Domain Name
Supporting Organization shall create a Names Council to make
recommendations regarding TLDs, including operation, assignment and
management of the domain name system and other related subjects; and
(iii) The Protocol Supporting Organization shall be composed of
representatives from Internet protocol organizations and others with
legitimate interests in these issues, as determined by the Protocol
Supporting Organization consistent with Section 2 of this Article and
approved by the Board. The Protocol Supporting Organization shall
create a Protocol Council to make recommendations regarding the
operation, assignment and management of protocol parameters, such as
port numbers, enterprise numbers, other technical parameters and
related subjects.
In my abysmal ignorance, I beg your indulgence once again: where
is the *intended function of the ASO specified? What are the
pressing questions an ASO will be expected to take up?
kerry
BTW, is there a documentary record of why the IANA draft bylaws
which read
[...]
There were many IANA drafts. I have some of them somewhere, but I
don't know of any site that has a complete record of all the changes
that were made or why.
BTW, did you look for information about the supporting organizations in
the IANA draft you quoted above?
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
esther, in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report. maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had no written info, i kept the story general and emphasized that the report was open for change. unfortunately, michael froomkin commented on bad info i gave him, believing that the principles of the famous marks section were among the principles after we saw the written release, i went back and put in comments in clearer context. my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri -Original Message- From: Esther Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:32 AM Subject: feedback on NYT article Jeri - In our conversation on Thursday, I said to you that we had endorsed many of the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. I suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for details, which include separate approaches to three separate categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to, refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details were better, the lede was seriously misleading. What more can I say? Unfortunately, these seemingly subtle distinctions are important. (For everyone: The details are at http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.) Esther May 28, 1999 Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit Cybersquatters By JERI CLAUSING he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other popular words as Internet addresses. Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the recommendations, which were issued last month by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. The board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until they can be reviewed by one of ICANN's newly formed member groups. Absent from that group, however, is the constituency that critics say have the most to lose under the recommendations: individuals and non-commercial interests who have already registered Internet addresses and could have them taken away. Like everything surrounding the Clinton Administration's process for handing administration of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead of its worldwide constituents. Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after Thursday's action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other chapters, including that recommending that ICANN establish a system for protecting not only trademarks but other famous words, was referred to the membership committee without recommendation. Still, he questioned the need for the board to take any action yet. "Why are they endorsing things before they send them to the supporting organization for review? " he asked. The unanimous endorsement of the principles by ICANN's board came during an eight-hour closed board
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
YUP IT IS!!! my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Jeri and all, If you remember some time ago I attempted to enlighten you in regards to Esther Dyson and the ICANN INterim Board. This confusion is just another example of her many attempts to expunge herself and the ICANN in a manner that is somewhat less than honest and accurate but in a light that is favorable to what the wish for everyone to believe. The plot thickens or sickens, so to speak, eh? Jeri Clausing wrote: esther, in our conversation, you told me the board had endorsed the principles of the report. maybe i misunderstood, but neither my notes or my memory recall any discussion of specifid chapters being endorsed and others being referred WITHOUT recommendation. because i had no written info, i kept the story general and emphasized that the report was open for change. unfortunately, michael froomkin commented on bad info i gave him, believing that the principles of the famous marks section were among the principles after we saw the written release, i went back and put in comments in clearer context. my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri -Original Message- From: Esther Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 10:32 AM Subject: feedback on NYT article Jeri - In our conversation on Thursday, I said to you that we had endorsed many of the "principles" of the WIPO report, most notably uniform dispute resolution, but not the specific recomemendations. I suggested that you consult the press release and resolutions for details, which include separate approaches to three separate categories/sections of the report (and which you to some extent outline later in the story). We did, as many public comments had advised us to, refer the second two categories (as opposed to approaches we had de facto already adopted in our registrar accreditation guidelines) to the DNSO. In other words, though the second paragraph of the story and subsequent details were better, the lede was seriously misleading. What more can I say? Unfortunately, these seemingly subtle distinctions are important. (For everyone: The details are at http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-resolutions.html and http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-details.html.) Esther May 28, 1999 Internet Board Backs Rules to Limit Cybersquatters By JERI CLAUSING he board of the Internet's new oversight organization on Thursday endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking down on so-called cybersquatters, who register trademarks and other popular words as Internet addresses. Esther Dyson, interim chairman of the organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, emphasized that the board's endorsement merely affirmed the broader principles of the recommendations, which were issued last month by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an arm of the United Nations. Many of the details, she said, would be open to amendment. The board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until they can be reviewed by one of ICANN's newly formed member groups. Absent from that group, however, is the constituency that critics say have the most to lose under the recommendations: individuals and non-commercial interests who have already registered Internet addresses and could have them taken away. Like everything surrounding the Clinton Administration's process for handing administration of the Internet to ICANN, the board's action was immediately criticized as contrary to its charge to be a "bottom's up" organization and follow the lead of its worldwide constituents. Brian O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for Network Solutions Inc., which has held an exclusive government contract for registering names in the top-level domains of .com, .net and org since 1993, said after Thursday's action that ICANN was envisioned "as a limited standard-setting body which is consensus based." But he said that when the board begins making such decisions, "It's top down instead of bottoms up." A. Michael Froomkin, a University of Miami law professor who advised WIPO on the recommendations and who has been critical of some of its major provisions, said he was pleased that the ICANN endorsement applied only to the broader dispute resolution principles. Three other chapters, including
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Esther, I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room several times what you had done. The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, please let me know so I can write a correction. And the point my story makes is that parts of this report that remain very controversial were referred and action is requested on those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very upset about that and it is my job to report both sides. Jeri Jeri -Original Message- From: Esther Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jeri Clausing [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our different treatment of each. Esther At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote: YUP IT IS!!! my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names Numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 (212) 924-8800 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Esther, I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room several times what you had done. The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, please let me know so I can write a correction. And the point my story makes is that parts of this report that remain very controversial were referred and action is requested on those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very upset about that and it is my job to report both sides. Jeri -Original Message- From: Esther Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jeri Clausing [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:24 PM Subject: Re: feedback on NYT article No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our different treatment of each. Esther At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote: YUP IT IS!!! my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names Numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 (212) 924-8800 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote: the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room several times what you had done. Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in detail". In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are reservations about the details. An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds vastly more definitive, formal and final than the much-later text "The board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...". Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial support from formal passage. But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of NSI. But who gets quoted? For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article? As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about compromise. d/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464 675 Spruce Drive http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Jeri and all, Good for you Jeri! ;) You shouldn't take the nonsense that Esther Dyson continually put out. She is continually being disingenuous. This exchange on this thread is just one of many many examples. And yes you should report BOTH sides as any good journalist should Jeri Clausing wrote: Esther, I checked my facts when the information was available. And I revised the story to reflect the new information. You DID NOT go over the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room several times what you had done. The revised story reflects the different distinctions. If there is an error in it, please let me know so I can write a correction. And the point my story makes is that parts of this report that remain very controversial were referred and action is requested on those items from a group that is not yet completely formed. Some people are very upset about that and it is my job to report both sides. Jeri Jeri -Original Message- From: Esther Dyson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jeri Clausing [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 1:30 PM Subject: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article No, it's an argument for reporters to check their facts ...and to attend the open meetings that we *do* have. On Wednesday, we clearly outlined the distinctions among the three sections of the WIPO recommendations, and our different treatment of each. Esther At 11:05 AM 29/05/99 -0400, Dave Farber wrote: YUP IT IS!!! my apologies to both of you for any confusion. perhaps this is another argument for open meetings? : ) jeri Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes! chairman, EDventure Holdings interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names Numbers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 (212) 924-8800 1 (212) 924-0240 fax 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor) New York, NY 10011 USA http://www.edventure.comhttp://www.icann.org High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest PC Forum: March 12 to 15, 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age" Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
Two points: 1) there's an enormous difference between endorsing the entire report "in principle but not in detail" and taking no view of some very controversial parts of it. For those who object to the entire proposal regarding famous marks on he principle of the thing, even an endorsement "in principle" would be pretty upsetting. It not being there matters. 2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to mean, but for the record I claim a constituency of one -- myself -- and am more than content for my statements to stand or fall on the power or idiocy of my ideas. This is why I write them out in some detail. (c.f. http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf ). There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about who loses/wins from delay. Before we even address those, though, lawyers like me will ask you if you think you are doing a short term thing or trying to build for the long term. If you are thinking long term then you need to worry about getting process right, not just outcomes. It seems to me that the current ICANN resolution on WIPO gets the substance right enough (if not quite like how I might have ideally wanted it). I am not persuaded it gets the process right, given the kerfuffle over the DNSOs, and more importantly, the issue of whether this Board ought to be doing substance or standing up for the principle that it's up to the first real Board to to do that. Of course, if you are focused on the short-term bottom line, this is not going to be an appealing argument... On Sat, 29 May 1999, Dave Crocker wrote: At 01:50 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Jeri Clausing wrote: the three different areas. You said repeatedly that you had endorsed the report in principle. And you asked someone else in the room several times what you had done. Somehow, I always thought that "in principle" was quite different from "in detail". In the more subjective realm, I've come to view the term "in principle" as being used to mean -- rather clearly, frankly -- that there are reservations about the details. An opening 'graph that says "...endorsed a controversial set of recommendations for cracking..." does not make this distinction and sounds vastly more definitive, formal and final than the much-later text "The board deferred final adoption of the recommendations until...". Sure enough, the national pickup of this article got exactly the wrong meaning from it, failing to distinguish principle from detail, and initial support from formal passage. But, then, the article does not point out the very limited consistency that Froomkin has, or to explicitly make clear that delay is in the interest of NSI. But who gets quoted? For that matter, where are the quotations of support in the article? As always, it is far easier to write a story about controversy than about compromise. d/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464 675 Spruce Drive http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -- It's hot here. --
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: 2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you -- or any other individual -- had concerns, but that the reporting of the concerns gives the impression that it represents a larger "constituency" with that concern. Given the scarce real-estate of such an article, who is quoted -- and how -- is a very, very important choice for the reporter. There is always someone, somewhere with an objection, no matter the topic. Hence, the context of the objection is frankly more important than the details of it. The article provided no such context. Unfortunately, there is nothing all that distinctive about this reportorial failure, either for this topic or much other reporting. There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about who loses/wins from delay. Before we even address those, though, lawyers like me will ask you if you think you are doing a short term thing or trying to build for the long term. If you are thinking long term then you need to worry Some of us have developed a rather interesting base of experience and it has taught us that there is no long-term, except with respect to short-term. Our experience comes from IETF standards and from networking startups. For any complex task, waiting to solve the "long-term" is a good way to ensure that nothing ever gets done, because there will never be a real and thorough understanding of the long term. That is not a vote for precipitous decision-making, but for pushing to make decision quickly in order to ensure forward progress. (For most of those seeking delay, this topic is -- requently literally -- purely academic. Hence, they feel no need to worry about making forward progress.) Rather, the real and effective way to pursue the long-term is with a series of near-term steps, making mid-course corrections as needed. This is from pragmatic experience. Some have attempted to dismiss that lesson, rather condescendingly, claiming that it might apply to a "homogeneous" "techie" environment, but I haven't noted those speakers demonstrating any alternative track record of success. (Typically, they also have no first-hand knowledge about the real degree of diversity or expertise within those "homogeneous" and "technie" environments.) Hence, they just serve to push for more delay. about getting process right, not just outcomes. It seems to me that the current ICANN resolution on WIPO gets the substance right enough (if not quite like how I might have ideally wanted it). I am not persuaded it gets the process right, given the kerfuffle over the DNSOs, and more I've invested quite a lot in the IETF process, so I do not dismiss such concerns lightly, but I've also noticed that process concerns can produce the wrong outcome, such as releasing guilty felons. it is far better to focus on the major content and treat the process as an adjunct, absence gross violations. Given the visibility of this activity, gross violations will get gross and broad response, not just from a tiny band of vocal folk, but truly "from the community". d/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464 675 Spruce Drive http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:03:54 -0700, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:23 PM 5/29/99 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: 2) I am uncertain what your remark about constituencies is supposed to Michael, I apologize for the confusion of my reference to you. Somewhat out of character, my comment was not so much focused on the fact that you -- or any other individual -- had concerns, but that the reporting of the concerns gives the impression that it represents a larger "constituency" with that concern. But that is just it, Dave. It DOES represent a much larger constituency than you or the rest of the CORE supporters want to admit. If you look at the online participation, I think it was made ABUNDANTLY clear that there were a LARGE number of people who share the concerns Mr Froomkin has put forth. It is the insistant of your group to ignore those who cannot make a face to face attendence that backs up your claim that this is not so. You are attempting to mischaracterize the level of support for his concerns in an effort to acheive short term goals that are unacceptable to a vast number of stakeholders. I have a serious question for you Dave. Why do you insist on charactizing these concerns as minimal and trivial when the sheer volume of concerns shows this to be otherwise? I recently watched a thread on a popular interactive "geek" tech news site when the WIPO report was released. By a vast margin, they came to the same conclusions as those of us who oppose the adoption of the WIPO guidelines. As a community they number in the tens of thousands. They have been instrumental as a community in applying influence on corporations such as IBM and Proctor and Gamble, and many others, on similar issues. Their activist efforts have even coined a new phrase to describe the effect that their efforts have. Groups of this size exist, and share many of the concerns stated. Would you like them to make their opinions and comments known to ICANN? Can ICANN handle the sheer volume of email and web site traffic such a grassroots effort by interested stakeholders could generate? Would THAT convince you there is OVERWHELMING concerns with the WIPO reports? What will it take for you to open your eyes and see that there are stakeholders and participants who are outside the IAHC/ISOC/gTLD-MoU/PAB/CORE sphere of influence? You well know these "groups" act together and usually with one voice. They may as well be ONE group. But they do NOT constitute even a simple majority of the interested stakeholders.not even close. -- William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Manager, DSo Internet Services Fax:(209) 671-7934
[IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address Supporting Organization in Santiago. Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at- large membership? kerry
Re: [IFWP] Re: feedback on NYT article
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:42:40PM +, Kerry Miller wrote: It expects to formally recognize a third group, the Address Supporting Organization in Santiago. Can someone help me with the antecedents for this SO? Is there mention in the Bylaws of anything besides DNSO, PSO, and the at- large membership? Yes. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
