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]>
