On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> 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.
You are quite right. It doesn't change anything.
However (a) Sandow and Lessig were disagreeing, and Lessig was claiming,
essentially, superior knowledge as a participant. I wrote to support
Sandow's version of events.
And (b) we have a future. People need to be reminded of what really
happened, so that history doesn't repeat itself.
One of the lessons of the IFWP for me is: don't trust academics.
> 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
