Re: RE: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0

[Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>]

Thanks. Yes, you said it better than I did.  (although some of the 
co-drafters may indeed dissent.)  Note also that there's a difference 
between reporting what different groups of people believe, 
and  recommending something of behalf of a group.  We will need to be clear 
about that, among other things.

Esther

At 12:28 PM 7/28/2002, Lawrence Solum wrote:
>I respectfully disagree.  The so-called main draft should not be viewed
>as being the subject of dissent, in the sense of "assent"
>or "approval."  Esther Dyson can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not
>believe she was implying that the document should be viewed as having
>the approval or assent of anyone other than the drafters.  Silence does
>not imply assent, and hence the term "dissent" is simply inapplicable.
>To say otherwise is simply to misunderstand the grammer of the concept
>of dissent.  The appropriate term would be "disagree," and in context,
>that seems obviously to be Esther's meaning.
>
>My point, to which Judith Oppenheimer did not respond, is that we ought
>to employ the principle of charity in interpreting the contributions of
>others to the list.  That is the route to productive dialog.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
>Date: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:53 am
>Subject: RE: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
>
> > Let's not play semantics games.
> >
> > Particularly in context of this process as well as the thread below,
> > "dis·sent - To withhold assent or approval" is right on target.
> >
> > J
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > ----------
> > Judith Oppenheimer
> > http://JudithOppenheimer.com
> > http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
> > http://WhoSells800.com
> > 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > ----------
> > Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > ----------
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lawrence Solum [mailto:Lawrence.Solum@lls.edu]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 7:15 PM
> > > To: James Love
> > > Cc: Esther Dyson; Sotiris Sotiropoulos; Denise Michel ALSC;
> > > atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; ALOC
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Jamie is overinterpreting the word "dissenting," which
> > is, in
> > > context, most naturally read as referring to "other" opinions.  The
> > > main document doesn't claim to represent the "majority" or
> > "official"> view of the at-large community as a whole.
> > >
> > > There is no substantive disagreement here, and Esther's
> > > original point
> > > is on target.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
> > > Date: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:20 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > >
> > > > How do you determine if a view is the main recommendation or in
> > > > the
> > > > "dissenting" opinion?  Do you have authority to just decide what
> > > > goes in the
> > > > report by yourself, or is there some process that is followed to
> > > > determine
> > > > what the "at-large" types really think?
> > > >
> > > > Jamie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Esther Dyson wrote:
> > > > > at the point when any document is posted or forwarded formally,
> > > > we
> > > > > should definitely note the existence of dissenting opinions,
> > > > with links
> > > > > to the various member groups' dissenting statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Esther
> > > > >
> > > > > At 06:21 AM 7/26/2002, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I must correct your inaccuracies, Hans.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I am, along with the other members of the ERC
> > > "assistance group,"
> > > > >> > responsible for crafting a substantive draft ALAC proposal.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > "Version 3.0" is *not* "a team product of the ALOC" and does
> > > > *not*>> > "represent the consensus of the ALOC."
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >   -  I wrote the outline as a starting point for discussion;
> > > > >> >   -  an overwhelming majority of ALOC members have not
> > > > commented on the
> > > > >> > text, let alone "approved" it;
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's because we DO NOT APROVE!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You and E. Dyson are simply railroading your version of the
> > > > proposal
> > > > >> through
> > > > >> without consideration for the REALITY of the consensus among
> > > > the ALOC
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> Hans' Draft 3.0 rightly points out.  The patsies you list as
> > > > part of
> > > > >> your latest
> > > > >> cabal are predictably handpicked.  ICANNAtLarge.com MUST
> > NOT be
> > > > listed
> > > > >> as any
> > > > >> kind of support for whatever document you produce and sbmit to
> > > > the ERC.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sincerely,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > > >>         ICANNAtLarge.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >   -  I expressed my disapproval to your additions;
> > > > >> >   -  the text simply represents a starting point for
> > > > discussions to
> > > > >> which a
> > > > >> > majority of assistance group members have not yet had a
> > > > chance to
> > > > >> contribute
> > > > >> > on ALAC issues.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The assistance group is not "replacing the ALOC as the voice
> > > > of the
> > > > >> user" as
> > > > >> > you melodramatically suggested.  It's a temporary group that
> > > > will
> > > > >> draft a
> > > > >> > proposal for an ALAC for ERC/public consideration.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Denise
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Denise Michel
> > > > >> > coordinator@at-large.org
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> > From: "Hans Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>
> > > > >> > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:49 AM
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Denise works with us to facilitate our processes.
> > > > Substantive work
> > > > >> is the
> > > > >> > responsibility of the ALOC members.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Version 3.0 is a team product of the ALOC and enjoys the
> > > > support of
> > > > >> > numerous ALOC members.  Indeed, I don't recall any
> > > > expressions of
> > > > >> > disapproval. I believe it represents the consensus of the
> > ALOC.> > >> >
> > > > >> > If I interpret Denise's comments correctly, the newly created
> > > > "ERC>> > assistance group" (from which Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > and I
> > > > were excluded)
> > > > >> > will soon replace the ALOC as the "voice of the user."  Sigh!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hans
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > At 09:34 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, Denise Michel ALSC wrote:
> > > > >> > >This is *not* the "latest version" or "Version 3.0" or a
> > > > "Proposed
> > > > >> Final
> > > > >> > >Draft" of the "At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> > > > >> > >Submission to the..ERC..On the Design of An At Large
> > > > Advisory
> > > > >> Committee
> > > > >> > >(ALAC)."  Hans Klein added these titles, along with a
> > > > "Preamble"
> > > > >> and "Part
> > > > >> > >I" to an *outline of approaches/issues* that needed to be
> > > > >> considered by
> > > > >> > >the ERC's "assistance group" in order to draft
> > > > implementation
> > > > >> details for
> > > > >> > >an ALAC.  Any ideas this list's participants have on how to
> > > > >> structure an
> > > > >> > >ALAC, of course, are welcome.  However, the point of this
> > > > limited ERC
> > > > >> > >assistance group is to quickly provide *detailed
> > > > recommendations*
> > > > >> on an
> > > > >> > >ALAC for public (your) consideration.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Hans may wish to slap some rhetoric on an outline and call
> > > > it a
> > > > >> potential
> > > > >> > >implementation plan, but that does not make it so. When the
> > > > assistance>> > >group issues its submission to the ERC, it
> > will be
> > > > a detailed
> > > > >> proposal for
> > > > >> > >establishing an ALAC on which anyone interested can comment,
> > > > >> change, build
> > > > >> > >upon.  It will not be, nor is it intended to be, a
> > > > reflection of
> > > > >> the views
> > > > >> > >of all ALOC member organizations or even all of the
> > > ALOC members
> > > > >> > themselves.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Denise
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Denise Michel
> > > > >> > >coordinator@at-large.org
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> > >From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > > > >> > >Cc: "discuss" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:37 AM
> > > > >> > >Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ALOC Draft 3.0
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Hans Klein wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Sotiris,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > The draft that you posted is out of date, I believe.
> > > > There have
> > > > >> been
> > > > >> > three
> > > > >> > > > revisions since then (2.0, 2.1, 3.0).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > The biggest change was to add a "Part I" that restates
> > > > the ALAC's
> > > > >> > support
> > > > >> > > > for election of At Large directors.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Hans,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Thanks for the heads up!  Apologies to all.  Below is the
> > > > latest
> > > > >> version.
> > > > >> > >Comments are welcome and will be submitted.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >------
> > > > >> > >VERSION 3.0 (Proposed Final Draft)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC)
> > > > >> > >Submission to the ICANN Evolution & Reform Committee On the
> > > > Design
> > > > >> of An At
> > > > >> > >Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >25 July 2002
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >PREAMBLE
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) was set up by ICANN
> > > > to
> > > > >> guide and
> > > > >> > >encourage bottom-up efforts to organize At-Large mechanisms
> > > > for
> > > > >> meaningful,
> > > > >> > >informed participation in ICANN.  The membership list of the
> > > > ALOC
> > > > >> can be
> > > > >> > seen
> > > > >> > >at: http://www.at-large.org/at-large-members.htm
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >This interim report offers recommendations on the
> > > > organization of
> > > > >> an At
> > > > >> > Large
> > > > >> > >Advisory Committee (ALAC).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >The ALOC finds itself faced with an inherent contradiction,
> > > > and
> > > > >> therefore
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >ALOC comments are organized in two parts.  On the one hand,
> > > > the
> > > > >> ALOC offers
> > > > >> > >comments on how to implement certain features of the
> > > > Evolution and
> > > > >> Reform
> > > > >> > >Committee's Blueprint for ICANN reform.   However, the ALOC
> > > > does not
> > > > >> > support
> > > > >> > >all portions of that Blueprint, especially the elimination
> > > > of the
> > > > >> elected
> > > > >> > At
> > > > >> > >Large directors.  There is widespread support in the ICANN
> > > > >> community for
> > > > >> > >elected At Large Directors.  Pending final resolution of the
> > > > election>> > issue,
> > > > >> > >however, the ALOC offers advice on what the Evolution and
> > > > Reform
> > > > >> Committee
> > > > >> > >should do and how it should operate
> > > > >> > >within ICANN now.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >With ICANN's authority over the DNS up for review and
> > > > renewal in
> > > > >> September
> > > > >> > >2002, we hope that a way can be found to preserve the
> > > > >> representation of
> > > > >> > users.
> > > > >> > >User representation will ensure a foundation of legitimacy
> > > > for
> > > > >> ICANN to
> > > > >> > enable
> > > > >> > >it to survive and prosper as an institution.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >We urge the ERC and ICANN to proceed on these issues
> > along a
> > > > >> timetable that
> > > > >> > >permits sufficient time for the At-Large Structures within
> > > > ALOC to
> > > > >> engage
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > >genuine deliberation with their constituencies on these
> > > > important
> > > > >> issues.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >PART I
> > > > >> > >SUPPORT FOR THE TERMS OF INTERNET PRIVATIZATION
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >The At Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) supports the
> > > > original
> > > > >> terms of
> > > > >> > >Internet privatization, most notably the principle of
> > balanced> > >> > representation
> > > > >> > >of users and industry experts on the ICANN board.  The ALOC
> > > > also
> > > > >> supports
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >implementation mechanisms developed for At Large users, most
> > > > >> notably the
> > > > >> > >direct
> > > > >> > >elections of directors.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >This support has been articulated in numerous documents,
> > > > including:>> > >? Esther Dyson's letter of 6 November 1998 to the
> > > > US Dept. of
> > > > >> Commerce on
> > > > >> > >behalf of the ICANN board.  That letter noted that the ICANN
> > > > Board
> > > > >> has an
> > > > >> > >unconditional mandate to create a membership structure that
> > > > will
> > > > >> elect nine
> > > > >> > At
> > > > >> > >Large Directors.
> > > > >> (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm)
> > > > >> > >? The NGO and Academic ICANN Study, which concluded that
> > > > ICANN should
> > > > >> > retain
> > > > >> > >balanced representation of users and industry experts on its
> > > > board and
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > >continue to employ global elections.
> > > > (http://www.naisproject.org/)>> > >? ICANN's At Large Study
> > > > Commission, which found that ICANN's policies
> > > > >> > affect
> > > > >> > >users and that users should be elected to the ICANN board.
> > > > >> > >(http://www.atlargestudy.org/)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >The ALOC therefore prefers that ICANN not implement the
> > > > >> recommendations in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >ERC Blueprint and instead work to implement the
> > conditions of
> > > > >> > privatization.
> > > > >> > >Only an ICANN whose legitimacy is beyond dispute can
> > work in
> > > > the
> > > > >> long run.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >PART II
> > > > >> > >WORKING WITHIN THE ERC BLUEPRINT
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >Whether the ERC blueprint will be the basis for a new ICANN
> > > > will
> > > > >> not be
> > > > >> > known
> > > > >> > >before the end of this year.  Despite the reservations about
> > > > that>> > >Blueprint, we
> > > > >> > >offer here some suggestions about how its terms might be
> > > > implemented.>> > >
> > > > >> > >1. Background
> > > > >> > >a. Need for At-Large: ICANN needs a mechanism for individual
> > > > users'>> > >participation in ICANN.  This provides a formalized
> > > > role in the policy
> > > > >> > >development process for users that ensures that user views
> > > > are
> > > > >> seriously
> > > > >> > taken
> > > > >> > >into account.
> > > > >> > >2. Role and Responsibilities
> > > > >> > >a. ALAC is a standing advisory committee of the Board
> > > > >> > >b. Provides advice and guidance to the Board and to other
> > > > >> organizations
> > > > >> > within
> > > > >> > >ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies
> > > > on, the
> > > > >> > Internet's
> > > > >> > >individual users ­ addressing pending issues and introducing
> > > > new
> > > > >> issues
> > > > >> > >relevant to Internet issues and within ICANN's purview.
> > > > >> > >c. Serves both as a resource for ICANN to pursue specific
> > > > >> issues/questions
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > >solicit user information, and as a meeting point for
> > > > individual
> > > > >> Internet
> > > > >> > users
> > > > >> > >and their organizations.
> > > > >> > >d. All ICANN policy-making entities will provide ALAC with
> > > > appropriate>> > notice
> > > > >> > >of upcoming and pending policy discussions and impending
> > > > policy
> > > > >> decisions
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > >ensure adequate opportunity for At-Large input
> > > > >> > >e. Through At-Large Structures, ALAC will engage in outreach
> > > > to, and
> > > > >> > education
> > > > >> > >of, individual Internet users about ICANN/ICANN issues and
> > > > will
> > > > >> involve
> > > > >> > users
> > > > >> > >and their representatives in decision making,
> > aggregation of
> > > > >> > >views, and identification of relevant Internet user
> > priorities> > >> > >f. ALAC will work with other ICANN
> > stakeholders to address
> > > > issues and
> > > > >> > develop
> > > > >> > >positions on relevant issues
> > > > >> > >g. ALAC will use on-line mechanisms as focal points for
> > > > discussions
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >information dissemination, ensuring broad public access to
> > > > ALAC
> > > > >> activities
> > > > >> > >h.
> > > > >> > >3. Structure/Membership
> > > > >> > >a. Should be structured so as to:
> > > > >> > >i. Provide effective, broadly inclusive mechanism for
> > > > involving and
> > > > >> > >representing individual Internet users in ICANN's policy and
> > > > >> > decision-making
> > > > >> > >activities
> > > > >> > >ii. Demonstrate that the organizations of which the ALAC is
> > > > composed>> > actually
> > > > >> > >do represent the populations they claim to represent.
> > > > >> > >iii. Have membership that is geographically diverse, and is
> > > > selected>> > through a
> > > > >> > >process which includes each At-Large Structure (group) that
> > > > meets
> > > > >> specified
> > > > >> > >criteria.
> > > > >> > >4. Involvement w/ Board, other entities
> > > > >> > >a. ALAC should have a liaison seat on the ICANN Board
> > > > >> > >b. It should have liaisons to other ICANN policy-making
> > > > bodies as
> > > > >> > appropriate
> > > > >> > >[To be defined.]
> > > > >> > >c. Appointment of four delegates to the Nominating Committee
> > > > >> > >5. "At-Large Structures" Criteria ­ new or existing
> > > > organizations
> > > > >> that:
> > > > >> > >a. Are open, participatory, and self-sustaining
> > > > >> > >b. Engage in outreach to, and education of, individual
> > > > Internet
> > > > >> users about
> > > > >> > >ICANN and ICANN issues
> > > > >> > >c. Involve individual Internet users in policy and
> > decision-
> > > > making and
> > > > >> > >activities related to involvement in ICANN, including
> > > > soliciting
> > > > >> opinions
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > >their members and having participatory mechanisms for the
> > > > >> discussion and/or
> > > > >> > >development of policies, aggregating views, and identifying
> > > > relevant>> > Internet
> > > > >> > >user priorities concerning ICANN
> > > > >> > >d. Maintain transparent and publicly accessible processes
> > > > for
> > > > >> input, policy
> > > > >> > >development, and decision-making
> > > > >> > >e. Post current information about the organization's aims,
> > > > structure,>> > >membership, working mechanisms and current
> > > leadership
> > > > >> > >f. Are open for new individual members
> > > > >> > >g. Are able to maintain themselves without requiring funding
> > > > from
> > > > >> ICANN
> > > > >> > >h. Are able to guarantee and demonstrate the real identity
> > > > of their
> > > > >> > >members and
> > > > >> > >to provide the relevant anagraphical data in electronic
> > form.> > >> > >6. At-Large Structure Designation/Development
> > > > >> > >a. ICANN should post and distribute a call for At-Large
> > > > Structures,>> > providing
> > > > >> > >organizations with an appropriate period of time apply
> > to be
> > > > >> eligible to
> > > > >> > >participate in the initial ALAC.
> > > > >> > >b. Organizations fulfilling the criteria can apply to become
> > > > At-Large
> > > > >> > >Structures at any time and participate in the ALAC as
> > > > appropriate>> > (immediately
> > > > >> > >or during next selection cycle depending on process).
> > > > >> > >c. It will be the ALAC's responsibility:
> > > > >> > >i. to alter or update the admission criteria for new
> > > Structures;
> > > > >> > >ii. to exclude from itself any Structure which, after
> > > > appropriate>> > >verification,
> > > > >> > >fails to meet the current criteria;
> > > > >> > >iii. to state whether any prospective Structure meets the
> > > > criteria and
> > > > >> > >thus can
> > > > >> > >be accepted in the process. Deliberations of type i) and ii)
> > > > require a
> > > > >> > >majority
> > > > >> > >vote of 2/3 of the ALAC.
> > > > >> > >d. At Large Structures will not be required to fund
> > ICANN or
> > > > the
> > > > >> costs of
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >ALAC, even if partially.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >7. ALAC Composition (options)
> > > > >> > >a. (Variable membership) One member from each
> > > At-Large Structure
> > > > >> > >b. (Fixed membership) Fixed number from each region
> > (ICANN has
> > > > >> > traditionally
> > > > >> > >addressed geographic diversity based on five regions of the
> > > > world)
> > > > >> (the
> > > > >> > >"Alexander plan")
> > > > >> > >c. Fixed membership, half appointed and half elected.
> > > > >> > >8. ALAC Funding and Staffing ALAC (options)
> > > > >> > >a. The ALAC could be funded either by its members, by ICANN,
> > > > or by
> > > > >> some
> > > > >> > >combination of the two.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >###
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >2
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > --------
> > > > >> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > -----
> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > > > help@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > > > > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > > > > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > > > > edyson@edventure.com
> > > > > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > > > > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > > > > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > > > > http://www.edventure.com
> > > > >
> > > > > The conversation continues..... at
> > > > > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ----
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ------
> > > > James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> > > > http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> > > > voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-
> > help@lists.fitug.de> >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >



Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de