Although Jim and I had many differences of opinion both on the desired result and how
to get there I have to agree with his version of history. But Singapore was a long time
ago. I think what we are doing here is finger-pointing. What good is it to asssign
blame now? I dont see it changing anything.
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> [Lessig:]
> > >> > 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.
>
> [Dixon:]
> > >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?
>
> Yes, that was me. And it was a "semblence of control" that I had
> in mind. ;-)
>
> She and I had a long conversation in which she first expressed her
> dislike of/grave doubts about an open meeting or any wrap-up
> meeting at all. Then she suggested that Harvard would be willing
> to supply a venue, so long as the text to be agreed upon was decided
> in a closed workshop and then ratified in an open meeting.
> This sounded to me like a workable compromise, so I supported it.
>
> > In other words, Tamar wanted a wrap up meeting but not in the
> > same format as the other 3.
> >
> > No ?
>
> She wanted a controlled solution. In this she agreed with the rest.
> I was willing to agree to anything that got us to an open and
> therefore uncontrolled wrap-up meeting.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net
> tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
