At 07:35 AM 9/18/00 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
>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.
That makes it sound like Tamar wanted ICANN and didn't want a wrap
up meeting. Aren't you the same Jim Dixon that got me off to the
side in Singapore and talked about a closed door wrap up meeting
followed by an open meeting saying that Tamar, to be an effective
negotiator between NSI and CORE had to have some semblnce of
control over the meeting?
In other words, Tamar wanted a wrap up meeting but not in the
same format as the other 3.
No ?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719
"The public-private partnership is the essence of fascist economics."
--Dan Sullivan
