Harol, Dan and all,
Dan, thank you for forwarding this. Harold, thank you for asking
Dan to have this forwrded to the ifwp list.
It appears that ICANN gentle and underhanded hand is involved
in WIPO's decision to take their "Study" far beyond it's NTIA
mandate in the White Paper requested. We should of course
NOT be suprised in this however, as this "Process" or "Zero-Sum"
game has been afoot for some time now. The whole process is
and has been flawed from the beginning and as such the results
should come as no suprise to anyone.
The collective dictatorial style or the WIPO and the ignoring of other
input from many different sources alone with the expected and
by design apathy or both the ICANN and WIPO is to us an example of
lack or responsibility to which both seem to be so concerned about
from the stakeholder community. I would suppose we will continue
to see these types of approaches and subsequent actions from WIPO and
ICANN in the future....
Dan Steinberg wrote:
> Forwarded with permission. Picture trouble is temporary.
> --
> Dan
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: The Froomkin Dissent
> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 18:33:16 -0500
> From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dan, can you please forward this to IFWP List?
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Even if It were true that Froomkin is the lone dissenter, WIPO should not be
>allowed to minimize the dissent in this fashion. Rather, the lone dissent and WIPO's
>response makes clear an objection that DNRC has had all along.
> >
> > When WIPO first got the project, we complained that there was not a single
>representative of the public interest on the panel. We argued that a panel without a
>public interest representative would prove biased toward commercial interests,
>insensitive to burdens placed on on-commercial users, and incapable of rising above
>their narrow shared world-view. While not conceeding the trutch of these
>allegations, WIPO did agree, in the name of openess, to appoint a public interest
>advocate.
> >
> > WIPO did everything it could to stack the process. WIPO waited until after it had
>expanded the scope of the study beyond cyberpiracy to a uniform dispute system before
>appointing a public interest advocate. WIPO appointed an academic, rather than a
>representative from an advocacy organization. WIPO carefully selected someone who
>had never taken a public, controversial position and whose involvement until that
>point had primarily been in the nature of a recorder.
> >
> > Surprise! Turns out Prof. Froomkin was an able observer, willing to stick to his
>guns, willing to subject WIPO's proposal to rigorous analysis, willing to invest the
>time in writing it up in an incredibly detailed fashion, and willing to make all of
>this very public.
> >
> > So now we have the one public interest advocate coming in and saying hey, from a
>public interest standpoint, this stinks for the following very specific reasons.
>Does WIPO have the grace to admit it? Hell no! Thos within WIPO pushing this agenda
>try to dismiss their own hand-selected expert, the one person who *explicitly*
>repesented the public interest in these proceedings, as a marginal opinion that
>should be ignored.
> >
> > To Froomkin's credit, he has dissented. To WIPO's shame, it has tried to minimize
>his dissent as that of a the lone dissenter.
>
> Now, in addition to this, we have Jay's report that Prof. Froomkin was
> not the lone dissenter. Rather, he was the only expert who made the effort
> to publicize his dissent. Others, according to Jay, felt so disenfranchised
> that they simply stopped contributing.
>
> It seems clear from this, and from reports of dissent from meetings in Asia and
> Australia, that a faction within WIPO wishes to rush a particular agenda through
> and claim broad support. This was attempted in September of 1997, and is being
> attempted yet again. Hopefuly, dissenters will make their opinions known to ICANN.
>
> Harold
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
