(fixed) >Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:35:11 +0100 (BST) >From: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: IFWP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: Lawrence Lessig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Domain Policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > AWPD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Where Does Lessig Stand? >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-NCC-RegID: uk.vbcnet >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Michael Sondow wrote: > >> > But second, and more to the point, I know first hand what lead to the end of >> > the IFWP process, as I was part of the negotiations in that process. Of all >> > the "parties" in that negotiation, Berkman was the last pushing for the >> > final meeting. We had been asked by NSI and IANA and IFWP's Tamar Frankel to >> > help broker a deal among these three actors to facilitate a final meeting >> > within the IFWP framework. Berkman had been, as you will recall, a strong >> > supporter of the IFWP process over IANA's; I personally had gone to Geneva >> > to help facilitate the drafting process, and had helped draft a final >> > statement of principles that was to constitute the source document for the >> > final meeting. > >I was very much involved in this process and this doesn't square with >my recollection of what happened. Tamar Frankel was set against any >last IFWP meeting; she said as much at the Singapore IFWP conference >and at other times. She was afraid of what might happen at an open >conference; she wanted a controlled solution. And she got it: ICANN. > >> > [Sims] informed me that he had reached an understanding with >> > the key members of the IFWP board (he never named the names) that they would >> > support IANA, and not the IFWP process. He therefore informed me that there >> > was no further reason to negotiate, as there was no continuing >> > organizational support from IFWP for the final meeting. At this stage, >> > though NSI was strongly pushing for a final meeting as well, NSI decided it >> > was more prudent simply to enter a negotiation with IANA. IFWP fell into >> > apparent disarray, as the support from them for the final meeting had been >> > compromised. >> >> Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Neither Joe Sims, nor the IANA, nor NSI >> had any real power to cancel an IFWP meeting. The IFWP, I may remind >> you, was the International Forum on the White Paper, in response to >> the White Paper's call for an assembly of the world's Internet users >> to work out a plan for Internet governance. In that context, the >> voice of any individual on the IFWP mailing list was equal to that >> of Joe Sims, the IANA people, or NSI. >> >> Why did you not ask Sims for the minutes of the vote taken in the >> IFWP to cancel the meeting? Wasn't that the one and only way to >> legitimize its cancellation? Where was your respect for democratic >> process? > >There were repeated votes in the IFWP and in the steering group in >favour of holding a wrap-up meeting. But the IFWP was the victim of >its own virtues: it was an open process that anyone could join, so >people who were entirely opposed to its goals were able to join the >IFWP steering committee and bring things to a grinding halt. > >In the end, in a complicated little power play, Mike Roberts, who >had never supported the IFWP's goals, led a walkout at a critical >juncture, which the academics used as an excuse to kill the wrap-up >meeting. > >> You and the other Berkman people are intimidated by what appears to >> you as power, and let your democratic principles and your sense of >> justice and right fall by the wayside. If you'd had the courage of >> your convictions, you would have told Sims and the others that there >> would most certainly be another meeting of the IFWP, that you had no >> authority to cancel it (and neither had Tamar Frankel, nor its >> Board), and that they could either attend it or not as they saw fit. >> Period. > >This appears to me to be true. > >> The simple truth is that some people did not believe in the IFWP >> process, and, because they are used to doing things behind closed >> doors through power brokering, expected and allowed that to happoen >> here. It is painful, I know, but it needs to be said that the >> Berkman Center is one such. >> >> > Berkman -- not IFWP, NSI, or IANA -- was the last >> > actor still pushing for a final IFWP meeting, but our commitment to the >> > process was to facilitate what these parties wanted. > >But only the strangest definition of 'actor' could make this true. >There were a lot of angry people on the IFWP steering committee, >people who were deeply unhappy first with the way in which the >wrap-up meeting was perverted into a carefully controlled charade >at the Berkman Center ... and then killed outright. > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 "The public-private partnership is the essence of fascist economics." --Dan Sullivan
