Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

1999-02-15 Thread Milton Mueller
Eric: Please tell Mr. Nesson that the capture has already occurred. The fatal flaw of ICANN, and of the "self-regulation" policy that led to its creation, is that it allowed a single faction (basically, the ISOC-gTLD-MoU-CORE group) to name the CEO and interim board unilaterally. This board is

Re: [IFWP] http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/

1999-02-15 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard J. Sexton" writes: Any time you folks want to inherit the ORSC moderation and rules just holler. I suggest using existing ORSC moderators for now until some other 3 suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers step forward. Can someone please tell me which discourse rules

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread Milton Mueller
Thank you, Jay. At least someone else understands --MM At 04:20 PM 2/14/99 , Jay Fenello wrote: The proposed draft guidelines for ICANN "registrars" makes our wranglings over the DNSO substantially moot. Virtually every policy that would normally be considered by a DNSO is *already*

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
Milton and all, Milton Mueller wrote: Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure?

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 11:35 PM 2/14/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark

RE: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Antony Van Couvering
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure? Enforced by whom? Enforced how? --MM

RE: [IFWP] Emergency DNS Policy

1999-02-15 Thread Antony Van Couvering
Milton Mueller wrote, Bret: There is only one thing the DNSO will do that is of any significance. That is to elect three members of the ICANN board. Unfortunately, I am beginning to agree with Milton about this. With the publication of the registrar guidelines, it seems that the ICANN

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark pressure? I don't agree with this assumption.

[IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [marion Cavanaugh patentattorney@netscape.net]

1999-02-15 Thread Richard J. Sexton
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:49:25 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:Non-member submission from [marion Cavanaugh [EMAIL PROTECTED]] From netscape.net!patentattorney Mon Feb 15 00:49:23 1999 Return-Path:

Re: [IFWP] BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission from [A.M. Rutkowski amr@ngi.org]

1999-02-15 Thread Kent Crispin
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 08:58:11PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: At 04:21 PM 2/14/99 -0800, you wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Why are we getting all that header stuff? Because it's enough of a pain to forward stuff that bounces as it is and

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark

Re: [IFWP] Up yours Esther

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
At 10:13 PM 2/14/99 -0500, you wrote: Dyson wrote: Believe me, we'd be thrilled to have individual sponsors too! Let us know if you're interested in donating. (But you don't get anything in return other than satisfaction and your name on our Website, just like the corporate donors.)

Re: [IFWP] Emergency DNS Policy

1999-02-15 Thread Michael Sondow
Antony Van Couvering wrote: If that is not the model, however, and the DNSO is structured such that its decisions really can be said to represent the consensus of the whole DNSO, then the DNSO can do one other thing besides electing ICANN Board members -- it can refuse to support ICANN

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: At this point, the mechanism is unimportant. It may very well be unmanageable, however we need to discuss desirability first, before wasting time discussing implementation of something which is possibly

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
William and all, William X. Walsh wrote: Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this trademark

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
Antony and all, Antony Van Couvering wrote: Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
At 10:26 PM 2/14/99 -0800, you wrote: At 11:13 AM 2/13/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 01:35 AM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters

RE: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 12:55 AM 2/15/99 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote: Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Martin makes a really good case for enforcing TLD charters. NSI has allowed them to erode simply because the TLD space has been frozen. Do you think enforced TLD charters would help in reducing this

[IFWP] Change od dates for INEGroup Dallas Conference

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
All, Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th. The location will be split on the following schedule between Texas Stadium and our campus auditorium and conference areas:

RE: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 10:16 AM 2/15/99 +0200, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Antony, On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote: Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced under the following circumstances:

RE: [IFWP] Change od dates for INEGroup Dallas Conference

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
On 15-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: All, Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th. The location will be split on the following schedule between Texas Stadium

RE: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the problem? To answer that, one must first define the

[IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread Einar Stefferud
The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated" because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a lack of proper USGovt Oversight of IANA and

Re: [IFWP] http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/

1999-02-15 Thread Bob Allisat
The rules are simple, Richard: I'll ignore everything if I'm Dyson/Roberts/theincrowd. All that silly civil discourse stuff applies only if there's a level playing field of opportunity. You've seen it yourself. It does not exist. Civil disobedience appears to be the only option available.

RE: [IFWP] Change of dates for INEGroup Dallas Conference

1999-02-15 Thread Ellen Rony
On 15-Feb-99 jeff Williams wrote: Due to some contract conflicts the location of the INEGroup/IIIF meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 25 thru the 28 has been changed for Feb. 23rd thru the 26th. As requested before, in my capacity as editor of Cyberworld, please mail me an invitation

[IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
Stef and all, Einar Stefferud wrote: The Key Issue, which Mr. Zittrain also misses here is the necessary distinction between NSI and its REgistrars becoming "regulated" because NSI is a recognized Moopoly which just happens to be the result of a nasty Market Structure Failure (caused by a

[IFWP] Power to the People (Story form ZDnet)

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
All, Things are changing fast! FYI http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_3090.html 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

Re: [IFWP] Up yours Esther

1999-02-15 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
In message Pine.LNX.3.93.990215045532.16914C-10@marietta, Bob Allisat wri tes: Bill Lovell wrote: Well, you could have fooled me. I'd have sworn it was going to be Michael Sexton who would be first into my kill file, but guess what, Bob: you caught the golden ring! F**k off

[IFWP] California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

1999-02-15 Thread Esther Dyson
Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against California? I am still working on my schedule, but please figure on Thursday evening, probably between Palo Alto and San Francisco. ANyone know of someone who could lend us some space? Esther At 02:51 AM 15/02/99 -0800,

Re: [IFWP] California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

1999-02-15 Thread Sue Chooi/Woo Wei Xian(Zen) [Exch]
Esther, U Should ask the organisations hosting their offices at San Franciso and Palo Alto. Wei Xian Esther Dyson wrote: Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against California? I am still working on my schedule, but please figure on Thursday evening, probably

RE: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 01:17 AM 2/15/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: On 15-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: Not necessarily. Given sufficient resources and careful crafting of requirements, all things are implement able. It is largely a matter of cost/effectiveness. IOW, is the solution larger than the

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread Jay Fenello
At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting (I'd been thinking of "interim" and "initial" as interchangeable before this): Hi Jonathan, I'm sorry.

[IFWP] Re: BOUNCE list@ifwp.org: Non-member submission

1999-02-15 Thread Kerry Miller
Kent wrote, On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote: Why are we getting all that header stuff? Because it's enough of a pain to forward stuff that bounces as it is and I'm too lazy to edit them out. It would be easy enough to configure things so that it

[IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Kerry Miller
Antony, 3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when .automakers is one of thousands of chartered TLDs? I suggest that if the mandate

RE: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote: Antony, 3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs if there are no unchartered TLDs. In other words, who the hell wants to be ford.automakers when you can be ford.com, especially when .automakers is one of thousands of

[IFWP] TLD enforcement

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
As some of you may know, the trademark search firms now do searches on domain names as well. Enforcement of TLDs would put more duties on the owner of the trademark registration to police that whole scene, and would generate lots of business for the search firms. However, that does not bother

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Roeland M.J. Meyer
At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote: As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML. What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML? Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts, of course). It is generally still

Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Antony, In message 001301be58c3$979a6e60$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Antony Van Couvering" writes: Milton's point is the good one and the obvious one. Chartered TLDs only make sense if the charter can be enforced. They can only be enforced under the following circumstances: snip)

Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

1999-02-15 Thread Michael Dillon
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Eric Weisberg wrote: I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll ourselves? As a matter of simultaneous discussion, I propose that the best way to lessen the likelihood of capture is to

Re: [IFWP] Timely decisions

1999-02-15 Thread Michael Dillon
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, William X. Walsh wrote: At 01:07 AM 2/14/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: Oh, isn't this rich. Is that a subtle way of saying that you approve of Lisse' constant ad hominem responses to Kent? Tt is me saying that I find it rather humorous that you would

[IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do wewant......?

1999-02-15 Thread Ellen Rony
Esther Dyson wrote: Ellen, yes, it was an accident. WHy on earth should we conspire against California? Well, since you asked, I have speculated on this very question. California is (a) the largest state in the nation; (b) the home of Silicon Valley with arguably the largest concentration of

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
At 11:55 AM 2/15/99 -0800, you wrote: At 11:27 AM 2/15/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote: At 02:49 AM 2/15/99 +00-04, you wrote: As for *implementation, it seems like an ideal place to use XML. What browsers/email packages now accommodate XML? Netscape and IE4 both do partial XML (different parts,

Re: [IFWP] Change od dates for INEGroup Dallas Conference

1999-02-15 Thread Frank Rizzo
I'll be baking fudge brownies for the ICANN bake sale to be held in conjunction with the INEG concert at Texas Stadium. Taft will be making mint tarts and Bob Allisat will be selling lemonade. We hope to raise enough money to to fund ICANN's legal defense fund so they can get on with their

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread Milton Mueller
On a lighter note, has anyone noticed the title of this thread? I be confused. --MM Jay Fenello wrote: At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the initial board would be doing policy, too--this from the Nov. 14 meeting

Re: [IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do wewant......?

1999-02-15 Thread Ken Stubbs
sigh i always thought california was part of the usa... what about texas ( home of dell and compaq) ,south dakota (home of gateway computers).., atlanta.. what about sao paolo, mexico city or peking .. what about substantive membership issues.. what about concentrating on providing more

[IFWP] Another pokey/veronica? earth.com

1999-02-15 Thread sthaug
See http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32390,00.html?st.ne.lh..ni. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

1999-02-15 Thread Kent Crispin
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 07:14:52PM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote: We have heard some proponents of the BMW application say and repeat that their application automatically protects minority interests, and that the Names Council as conceived by that document is not a powerful body at all

[IFWP] TLD enforcement

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
Well, just when you get to the point of the Director of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office who said, at the end of the Nineteenth Century, that the office should be shut down because "everything had already been invented," along come more technical means for today's problems:

Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

1999-02-15 Thread Kent Crispin
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 12:34:33PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: [...] I propose that the best way to lessen the likelihood of capture of a domain name by the rrichest one of many trademark holders with an interest in that domain name, is to maximize the number and diversity of TLDs. Part of

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority

1999-02-15 Thread Ken Stubbs
-Original Message- From: Jay Fenello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Becky Burr [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther

[IFWP] Check your local newspaper

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
In today's Oregonian there is a Knight Ridder News Service article with the byline of David Plotnikoff that describes Mike Roberts and the start of ICANN, the latter, we are told, presently consisting of "a cluttered back bedroom of Roberts' . . . home." The tale of the Oct. 25, 1998, meeting at

RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
On 15-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote: Will ICANN mandate that the two processes come together and created a merged consensus? Just so anyone doesn't criticize me for not saying how this could work, I suggest that ICANN setup a meeting, and that 5 or 6 members from each process be

[IFWP] Re: Decision on Paris and BMW DNSO drafts

1999-02-15 Thread Ellen Rony
All, We have just completed our list vote with our AWorks members regarding the existence of INEGroup. The results follow: INEGroup exists? Yes, it is for real:0.0005% Nope, there's no record, no proof: 92.25% Donkeys can fly

Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous

1999-02-15 Thread Bill Lovell
At 04:27 PM 2/15/99 -0500, you wrote: On a lighter note, has anyone noticed the title of this thread? I be confused. --MM Jay Fenello wrote: At 2/14/99, 05:18 PM, Jonathan Zittrain wrote: For what it's worth, ICANN's been pretty clear from the start that the initial board would be doing

[IFWP] Style is Substance

1999-02-15 Thread Bret A. Fausett
Not only are issues of substance separating the Paris proposal from the dnso.org proposal, but the style of the drafts (IMHO) is preventing even an attempt at merging them. As a recent post from Kent Crispin made clear, the dnso.org draft is "explicitly high level," while the Paris proposal

[IFWP] Good ICANN money making scheme: Proprietary protocols in IETFclothing?

1999-02-15 Thread Gordon Cook
Would any of the "real" engineers reading here say that the item below offers a good reason why the less that the IETF has to do with ICANN the better? Does the RFC editor position now need political protection? Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:27:57 -0700 (MST) From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL

[IFWP] Who will stand up for Civility?

1999-02-15 Thread Ken Freed
The lack of civility on these lists is counterproductive. Please focus on the issues, not the personalities. Why give attention to people desperate for attention? If you agree with this principle, please stop replying to those who would distract us from useful dialog. Who else is willing to

Re: [IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18

1999-02-15 Thread Ken Freed
So why not meet here in Denver? We're convenient from both coasts, equidistant from Europe and Asia, relatively neutral turf (cable aside), our climate can't be beat, and we offer excellent meeting facilities. I could help with logistics. -- Ken Ken Freed Media Visions Denver Esther Dyson

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
William and all, To bad they (Ml.org) did not do a very good check on you. However I am not suprised given your rather weak efforts in other areas. William X. Walsh wrote: On 15-Feb-99 Kerry Miller wrote: Antony, 3. Consumer-driven e-commerce will only work in chartered TLDs

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
Yeah, Jeff, ok :) Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at : http://www.dso.net/wwalsh/jeffw/ -- E-Mail: William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 15-Feb-99 Time: 15:06:18 -- "We may well be on our way to a

Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

1999-02-15 Thread Jay Fenello
At 2/15/99, 05:55 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote: I see a lot of thrashing to and fro on "intentions." I choose to believe that all of us involved, and working, sometimes very long hours, have good intentions, but still sometimes misunderstand or mistrust each other. I'm for working on a

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
William and all, Problem is they are obvious fakes. I already talked to your Mr Frosty! Is he a relation to "Frosty the snow Man" By any chance! LOL! Facts my ass! William X. Walsh wrote: Yeah, Jeff, ok :) Still waiting for a factual refutation of the facts at :

Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademarks vs DNS

1999-02-15 Thread William X. Walsh
OK, I'll post this response on the website as a response to a request for a factual response. However, if this report is false, then it would be a real simple matter for you to prove it and silent all critics. All you need is a few simple facts. That you won't (and have never) posted these

[IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

1999-02-15 Thread Einar Stefferud
What kind of meeting is this expected to be? Does it have an agenda? Is it just a social gathering? Or a Birds Of A Feather thing? Or just a meeting to enable saying that ICANN held one in California? Seriously, we should have more of an idea about why and what. Cheers...\Stef

Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [IFWP] BMW Procedural Problems

1999-02-15 Thread Einar Stefferud
It seems abundantly clear to me that ICANN has a large role to play in making it very clear that they will not favor any application whose supporters refuse to reasonably participate in a process of resolving differences. And this included doing so in public on the Internet. It is not good

[IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do we want......?

1999-02-15 Thread jeff Williams
Esther and all, Is this to say the some decisions will be "Decided" in Singapore, and therefore the impromptu meeting in California will mearly be a coffee clutch type affair Esther? It seems that you let out a "Tell", a poker term, if follow that parlance or are familiar with it. If there

[IFWP] Re: California meeting March 18; was Re: Chopped liver no more! Was Re: do wewant......?

1999-02-15 Thread Ellen Rony
Einar Stefferud wrote: What kind of meeting is this expected to be? Does it have an agenda? Is it just a social gathering? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but since the Singapore meeting will be over, and since ICANN has not included on its agenda a discussion about whether to open board