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.com http://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"
>
>
>
