Hi Ellen, While we all appreciate your note-taking for two among the many Steering Committee meetings, your minutes do not reflect the many other communications that revolved around the destruction of the wrap-up meeting. Given all that was known to me at the time (much of which occurred after the record you have provided), I stand by the statements that I have articulated in this exchange. And while it might seem like we're flogging a dead horse, I believe that the failure of the wrap-up meeting was the pivotal point in the failure of the ICANN process -- it lead to the acceptance of the IANA by-laws, and the stealth appointment of the "interim" board. IMHO & FWIW, every other problem with ICANN is a direct result of this failure! Jay. At 01:56 PM 9/19/00, Ellen Rony wrote: >On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Jay Fenello wrote: > > > >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. > >On Tues, 19 Sep 200, Jim Dixon wrote: > > > > This is where Berkman could have provided > > assistance, but instead, took the easy way > > out. > > > > >While it may seem like we are flogging a dead horse to spend any more time >to discussing the fateful wrap-up IFWP meeting, it is clearly an issue that >continues to ignite controversy among those who had such high hopes for the >IFWP process. > >As years pass, memory is often transmuted Kurosawa-like by the filter of >one's subsequent knowledge, experiences and aspirations. That said, I >believe both Jim Dixon and Jay Fenello have posted accurate accounts as >known to them through their participation on the IFWP Steering Committees. >Where we diverge is in our assessment of Berkman's role or obligations at >that crossroads. > >I was scribe for the final two meetings of the Steering Committee. My role >was to capture as fully and accurately as possible what transpired in a >global teleconference simultaneously taking place at 3 p.m. in Germany, 6 >a.m. from my California perch and 9 p.m. the previous evening in Asia. > >After taking those notes, I offered every teleconference participant the >opportunity to review them for errors. The minutes are posted on my >website because, despite numerous requests for instructions about where to >send or post them, no guidance was forthcoming. The Steering Committee >apparently felt its work was done and there was little interest in this >residual piece of the historical IFWP record. > >I do not agree with those who have pilloried the Berkman Center by >asserting that it caused the demise of the wrap-up meeting. This is akin >to shooting the messenger. Nor do I believe it was Berkman's place to >push for a meeting absent the two major players. As Jonathan Zittrain made >clear to members of the Steering Committee, "We are disposable parties >here." > >Berkman offered a venue for an editorial meeting that was to precede a >ratification meeting, and thus Berkman was closely involved in its >logistical coordination. Yes, the SC was surprised by the information >Jonathan Zittrain presented at the September 5, 1998 teleconference. >However, it is not right to place the domino effect of IANA's and NSI's >machinations and negotiations at the time upon Berkman's shoulders. >Someone was tasked with providing updates to the SC. That task fell to >Berkman. > >The SC, as the coordinating body of the IFWP process, had a an opportunity >to tell IANA and NSI that it was serving a larger community and the >meetings would proceed with or without them. It chose not to do so. > >The proposed bylaws had been through four iterations by then (including a >proposal from NSI). Another proposal drafted absent input from either IANA >or NSI would never pass muster with the Department of Commerce. > >Those who fault Berkman for the demise of the wrap-up need to look >elsewhere. And one must ask, would a wrap-up meeting have changed the >outcome we have today? IMHO, not likely. Would it have changed how the >interim ICANN board was chosen. IMHO, not likely. Humans have a fondness >for closure, but that's not likely to be forthcoming any time soon on >matters relevant to the curious and debatable birth of ICANN. > > > > >[snip] > > > >You have stated, falsely and recklessly, that Berkman (and because I was the > >negotiator, that means I) stopped the final meeting. That claim is reckless, > >because even a simple review of the evidence would show you the contrary. > >(See, for example, the minutes of the IFWP teleconferences, which are > >contrary to your claims. <http://www.domainhandbook.com/scmin.html#090598>) > > > >-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- >Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com >Co-author *=" ____ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010 > // \\ > "Carpe canine" > The more people I meet, the more I like my dog. > If you want a friend, get a dog. -- Harry S. Truman +++ Jay Fenello, New Media Strategies ------------------------------------ http://www.fenello.com 678-585-9765 Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World ------------------------------------------------------- "We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle between corporate globalization and popular democracy." http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml -- David Korten
