Previous Politech message: "Internet Society denies press credentials to online publication" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03605.html ************ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 13:00:10 -0700 From: Richard Perlman <perlat_private> To: Lucia Ruedenberg Wright <luciaat_private>, Lynn St.Amour <st.amourat_private> Cc: isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private, isoc-chapters-discussat_private, ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org, discuss@isoc-ny.org, dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, Jay Robert Hauben <jrh29at_private>, bod@isoc-ny.org, isoc-boardat_private Subject: Press Credentials and INET2002 To all those concerned with issues regarding Press Passes for INET2002: This morning I have been able to assemble what I think is a complete account of the issues surrounding the request for Press credentials for the Amateur Computerist. The rest of this letter outlines what I have learned and my response to the situation. The request for two press passes for INET2002 from the "Amateur Computerist" was received by Foretec on May 19th. At that time (less than a month before the conference) Press Credentials had already been issued to 46 persons from 31 different organizations. Note that contract between ISOC and Foretec specifies an explicit limit of 50 press passes for the conference. Four passes were being held in reserve for last minute requests from major media organizations (Network/National TV, Radio etc.). After speaking with the people at Foretec who are managing press credentials, it is clear that what they had intended to state in their letter to Amateur Computerist was that the remaining passes were being reserved for high visibility organizations. It is unfortunate that the message created the incorrect impression that this selectivity applied to all 50 passes - it clearly did not, as can be seen from the list of organizations below. People working long hours do sometimes make mistakes. Both Foretec and ISOC apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by the wording of the e-mail response to the Amateur Computerist. An offer to be placed on a waiting list was extended to the "Amateur Computerist, but no response to that offer, or for that matter, any other message has been received from them by either by Foretec or ISOC. I can also report that the information and opinions regarding past involvement of Amateur Computerist or the principals of that organization in previous INET conferences was not known to Foretec and did not play any part in the decision to deny the request for press credentials. After reviewing the correspondence between Foretec and the Amateur Computerist, I am convinced that the decision to deny the press credentials was correct, based on the small number of passes available at the time of their request and the information provided by Amateur Computertist about the nature and distribution of their work. Accordingly, while I do apologize for the misunderstanding created by the letter to the Amateur Computerist, it is my opinion that this matter was otherwise handled fairly, objectively and appropriately by the Foretec staff. Richard Perlman ISOC - VP for Conferences List of organizations issued Press credentials for INET 2002 ============================================================ Associated Press USA CIO Radio and Magazine USA CNET News USA Diario ABC Color Paraguay Direction Informatique et Les Affairs Canada E-Commerce Magazine India Europe Magazine EU eWeek USA Financial Times USA Focus Magazine Germany Foreign Policy USA Government Computer News Washington DC Himalmedia Publications Nepal Hosting Tech USA Howard University TV Washington DC Information Services International - Dentsu, ltd. Japan Internet News Italy InfoWorld USA ISOC's On the Internet International Network World USA New York Times USA Newsweek USA Perl Magazine India Radio Netherlands Netherlands San Jose Mercury News Silicon Valley The Sunday Tribune Ireland The Washington Post USA WAMU- Press Washington DC Washington Internet Daily Washington, DC Washington Technology Washington, DC WIRED / Politechbot.com USA/Washington, DC ************ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:35:12 -0400 From: Martin Burack <martyat_private> To: Richard Perlman <perlat_private> Cc: tednellen <tnellenat_private>, isoc-boardat_private, isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private, isoc-chapters-discussat_private, ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org, discuss@isoc-ny.org, dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, bod@isoc-ny.org Subject: Re: [Bod] Press Credentials and INET2002 I didn't pay attention to the distro of these emails, and didn't realize how widespread the lists. And I'm seeing people upset at ISOC, mistakenly as far as I am concerned. So I have to go public with something I mentioned to a couple of people. This isn't the first time the Amateur Computerist was denied press credentials at an INET. It happened in 1999, and I fully supported this, due to inappropriate behavior at INET'98. In a posting back then, at http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9906/msg00052.html Rhonda Hauben said "...The response by an official of ISOC was to tell an editor of the Amateur Computerist that she wasn't allowed to participate in the IFWP meeting or that she would have to give up her press pass." I think she meant me, and what I told her was that reporters had a different role than other attendees; they weren't there to debate with speakers but to ask questions and to report. So she could choose one role or the other. Rhonda Hauben had engaged in debates with speakers and made speeches during q&a sessions; not what a journalist should be doing. I told her I would have her ejected if the behavior continued. I can post the email I sent Jay Hauben at that time, if that's what Jay and Rhonda prefer. I would not issue credentials to the Amateur Computerist. Marty p.s. Everyone should feel free to post this wherever anyone posts something attacking ISOC for denying the A.C. press credentials. At 10:52 AM 06/03/2002, Richard Perlman wrote: >Mr. Nellen: > >I too value and support open public discussions. However, when the opening, >widely broadcast* statements in such a discussion read like... > > > ... I writing to you to ask for your help in publicly shaming ISOC for its > > recent behaviors and actions, including but not limited to the > complaint below > > regarding lack of press access for the publication _Amateur Computerist_. > >..I am more inclined to feel that there is a public witch hunt taking place >than a discussion. As I have previously stated, there is little I can >discuss until I learn more about what happened and why. At this point, the >only information available is a report from "American Computerist" which, as >a party to the issue appears to have some stake in the outcome. All I have >requested is that this discussion be delayed a few hours until we can offer >more complete information, and possible resolution. This is in no way an >attempt to stifle public discussion, but rather, a way to be sure that such >discussion is based on a more complete dataset. > >Richard Perlman >ISOC - VP for Conferences > >On 6/3/02 4:33 AM, "tednellen" <tnellenat_private> wrote: > > it is this very matter of "public" that is so important. it is why i like > > the net as opposed to other media. my fear is that it will lose its > > "public" characteristic by the very actions of ISOC and other agencies as > > they seem to sell out to private orgs. if ISOC is not happy with a > > "public" discussion then we should be worried, very worried. > >* The quote was sent to the following persons and lists: >isoc-boardat_private >isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private >isoc-chapters-discussat_private >ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org >discuss@isoc-ny.org, >dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, >Jay Robert Hauben <jrh29at_private> >bod@isoc-ny.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 08:56:43 -0700 From: Richard Perlman <perlat_private> To: Marty Burack <martyat_private> Cc: tednellen <tnellenat_private>, isoc-boardat_private, isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private, isoc-chapters-discussat_private, ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org, discuss@isoc-ny.org, dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, bod@isoc-ny.org Subject: Re: [Bod] Press Credentials and INET2002 To all those who are following this thread: While I have no doubt that Marty's accounting is accurate, at least from his point of view. I only wish to point out that until I have received a full explanation from Foretec I cannot say that this information was available to Foretec at the time the "Amateur Computerist" was denied their press credentials, or even if it was, that is had any effect on the decision. I, for one,had heard about the incident, but did not know the names of those involved or that they were, in fact, associated with the Amateur Computerist." Richard On 6/3/02 8:35 AM, "Martin Burack" <martyat_private> wrote: > I didn't pay attention to the distro of these emails, and didn't realize > how widespread the lists. And I'm seeing people upset at ISOC, mistakenly > as far as I am concerned. So I have to go public with something I > mentioned to a couple of people. This isn't the first time the Amateur > Computerist was denied press credentials at an INET. It happened in 1999, > and I fully supported this, due to inappropriate behavior at INET'98. > > In a posting back then, at > http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9906/msg00052.html > Rhonda Hauben said "...The response by an official of ISOC was to tell an > editor > of the Amateur Computerist that she wasn't allowed to participate in the > IFWP meeting > or that she would have to give up her press pass." > > I think she meant me, and what I told her was that reporters had a > different role than other attendees; they weren't there to debate with > speakers but to ask questions and to report. So she could choose one role > or the other. Rhonda Hauben had engaged in debates with speakers and made > speeches during q&a sessions; not what a journalist should be doing. I > told her I would have her ejected if the behavior continued. > > I can post the email I sent Jay Hauben at that time, if that's what Jay and > Rhonda prefer. > > I would not issue credentials to the Amateur Computerist. > > Marty > p.s. Everyone should feel free to post this wherever anyone posts something > attacking ISOC for denying the A.C. press credentials. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:18:14 -0400 From: George SADOWSKY <george.sadowskyat_private> To: Martin Burack <martyat_private>, Richard Perlman <perlat_private> Cc: tednellen <tnellenat_private>, isoc-boardat_private, isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private, isoc-chapters-discussat_private, ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org, discuss@isoc-ny.org, dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, bod@isoc-ny.org Subject: Re: [Bod] Press Credentials and INET2002 As the Vice-President of Conferences of the Internet Society in 1998, I want to verify Marty Burack's account of the events of 1998. The incident Marty refers to occurred at the Press Lunch, where the press representative launched into a long diatribe criticizing something (I can't remember what) and continued at long length, refusing to finish. It was totally inappropriate and disruptive. I do not question a member of the press' right to be critical, nor do I want to prejudge the current application, but it was clear to me that this instance indicated both an inability to separate the roles of press representative and member as well as abuse of a privileged status. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:35 AM -0400 6/3/02, Martin Burack wrote: >I didn't pay attention to the distro of these emails, and didn't >realize how widespread the lists. And I'm seeing people upset at >ISOC, mistakenly as far as I am concerned. So I have to go public >with something I mentioned to a couple of people. This isn't the >first time the Amateur Computerist was denied press credentials at >an INET. It happened in 1999, and I fully supported this, due to >inappropriate behavior at INET'98. > >In a posting back then, at >http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9906/msg00052.html >Rhonda Hauben said "...The response by an official of ISOC was to >tell an editor >of the Amateur Computerist that she wasn't allowed to participate in >the IFWP meeting >or that she would have to give up her press pass." > >I think she meant me, and what I told her was that reporters had a >different role than other attendees; they weren't there to debate >with speakers but to ask questions and to report. So she could >choose one role or the other. Rhonda Hauben had engaged in debates >with speakers and made speeches during q&a sessions; not what a >journalist should be doing. I told her I would have her ejected if >the behavior continued. > >I can post the email I sent Jay Hauben at that time, if that's what >Jay and Rhonda prefer. > >I would not issue credentials to the Amateur Computerist. > >Marty >p.s. Everyone should feel free to post this wherever anyone posts >something attacking ISOC for denying the A.C. press credentials. > > > > > > >At 10:52 AM 06/03/2002, Richard Perlman wrote: >>Mr. Nellen: >> >>I too value and support open public discussions. However, when the opening, >>widely broadcast* statements in such a discussion read like... >> >>> ... I writing to you to ask for your help in publicly shaming ISOC for its >>> recent behaviors and actions, including but not limited to the >>>complaint below >>> regarding lack of press access for the publication _Amateur Computerist_. >> >>..I am more inclined to feel that there is a public witch hunt taking place >>than a discussion. As I have previously stated, there is little I can >>discuss until I learn more about what happened and why. At this point, the >>only information available is a report from "American Computerist" which, as >>a party to the issue appears to have some stake in the outcome. All I have >>requested is that this discussion be delayed a few hours until we can offer >>more complete information, and possible resolution. This is in no way an >>attempt to stifle public discussion, but rather, a way to be sure that such >>discussion is based on a more complete dataset. >> >>Richard Perlman >>ISOC - VP for Conferences >> >>On 6/3/02 4:33 AM, "tednellen" <tnellenat_private> wrote: >>> it is this very matter of "public" that is so important. it is why i like >>> the net as opposed to other media. my fear is that it will lose its >>> "public" characteristic by the very actions of ISOC and other agencies as >> > they seem to sell out to private orgs. if ISOC is not happy with a >>> "public" discussion then we should be worried, very worried. >> >>* The quote was sent to the following persons and lists: >>isoc-boardat_private >>isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private >>isoc-chapters-discussat_private >>ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org >>discuss@isoc-ny.org, >>dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, >>Jay Robert Hauben <jrh29at_private> >>bod@isoc-ny.org > >_______________________________________________ >Bod mailing list >Bod@isoc-ny.org >http://www.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/bod ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:37:19 -0400 From: George SADOWSKY <george.sadowskyat_private> To: Randy Wright <rw26at_private>, Martin Burack <martyat_private> Cc: Richard Perlman <perlat_private>, tednellen <tnellenat_private>, isoc-boardat_private, isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private, isoc-chapters-discussat_private, ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org, discuss@isoc-ny.org, dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, bod@isoc-ny.org Subject: Re: [Bod] Press Credentials and INET2002 Randy, The point is that it _wasn't_ a public forum - it was a gathering especially for press to be informed about INET 98 where Rhonda launched her attack. I have no problem with them registering for the conference and disputing in a public forum - although there are rules of courtesy that need to be followed if only for the benefit of others attending. What I didn't mention in my posting was that Rhonda did exactly that in Montreal in 1996 - attacking the FCC plenary speaker during the discussion period after his plenary speech. She did NOT ask a question, she launched into a prepared and VERY long diatribe which continued until she started being shouted down by members of the audience. Respecting the rights of others should be a necessary condition for enjoying those same rights oneself. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 10:54 AM -0400 6/3/02, Randy Wright wrote: >If I hear you correctly, Marty, you are saying that you'd deny press >credentials to Amatuer Computerist because they debate while on duty as >reporters. With respect, I wish to disagree with this position. > >In my experience, debating with AC staff is a lot like a poke in the eye >with a pointed stick. They can be very dogged and ask the most >infuriatingly questions at the most inopportune times. > >But I wouldn't deny them the right or opportunity to do exactly that in as >public a forum as they wish. It is notable that today's journalism has >moved from reporting to debating as a way to illuminate issues and >especially people's passions about issues. Have a look at the cable news >channels. Jounralism is filled with examples of this Bill O'Riellly style >of attacking whoever you are interviewing and treating them in an >adversarial fashion. The Haubens are not acting unlike journalists when >they get into heated debates at ISOC events. > >In additonal, they tend to ask questions that express dissent from those >in leadership roles around the Interenet. I wouldn't want to suppress >that dissenting voice. We need it. > >--randy > >On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Martin Burack wrote: > >> I didn't pay attention to the distro of these emails, and didn't realize >> how widespread the lists. And I'm seeing people upset at ISOC, mistakenly >> as far as I am concerned. So I have to go public with something I >> mentioned to a couple of people. This isn't the first time the Amateur >> Computerist was denied press credentials at an INET. It happened in 1999, >> and I fully supported this, due to inappropriate behavior at INET'98. >> >> In a posting back then, at >> http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9906/msg00052.html >> Rhonda Hauben said "...The response by an official of ISOC was to tell an >> editor >> of the Amateur Computerist that she wasn't allowed to participate in the >> IFWP meeting >> or that she would have to give up her press pass." >> >> I think she meant me, and what I told her was that reporters had a >> different role than other attendees; they weren't there to debate with >> speakers but to ask questions and to report. So she could choose one role >> or the other. Rhonda Hauben had engaged in debates with speakers and made >> speeches during q&a sessions; not what a journalist should be doing. I >> told her I would have her ejected if the behavior continued. >> >> I can post the email I sent Jay Hauben at that time, if that's what Jay and >> Rhonda prefer. >> >> I would not issue credentials to the Amateur Computerist. >> >> Marty >> p.s. Everyone should feel free to post this wherever anyone posts something >> attacking ISOC for denying the A.C. press credentials. >> >> >> >> >> > > >> At 10:52 AM 06/03/2002, Richard Perlman wrote: >> >Mr. Nellen: >> > >> >I too value and support open public discussions. However, when >>the opening, >> >widely broadcast* statements in such a discussion read like... >> > >> > > ... I writing to you to ask for your help in publicly shaming >>ISOC for its >> > > recent behaviors and actions, including but not limited to the >> > complaint below >> > > regarding lack of press access for the publication _Amateur >>Computerist_. >> > >> >..I am more inclined to feel that there is a public witch hunt taking place >> >than a discussion. As I have previously stated, there is little I can >> >discuss until I learn more about what happened and why. At this point, the >> >only information available is a report from "American >>Computerist" which, as >> >a party to the issue appears to have some stake in the outcome. All I have >> >requested is that this discussion be delayed a few hours until we can offer >> >more complete information, and possible resolution. This is in no way an >> >attempt to stifle public discussion, but rather, a way to be sure that such >> >discussion is based on a more complete dataset. >> > >> >Richard Perlman >> >ISOC - VP for Conferences >> > >> >On 6/3/02 4:33 AM, "tednellen" <tnellenat_private> wrote: >> > > it is this very matter of "public" that is so important. it is >>why i like >> > > the net as opposed to other media. my fear is that it will lose its >> > > "public" characteristic by the very actions of ISOC and other >>agencies as >> > > they seem to sell out to private orgs. if ISOC is not happy with a >> > > "public" discussion then we should be worried, very worried. >> > >> >* The quote was sent to the following persons and lists: >> >isoc-boardat_private >> >isoc-chapters-presidentsat_private >> >isoc-chapters-discussat_private >> >ECC-Council@isoc-ecc.org >> >discuss@isoc-ny.org, >> >dcisoc-steering-l-membersat_private, >> >Jay Robert Hauben <jrh29at_private> >> >bod@isoc-ny.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bod mailing list >> Bod@isoc-ny.org >> http://www.isoc-ny.org/mailman/listinfo/bod >> > >-- > http://www.democracynow.org/ - news >__________________________________________________________ >rw26at_private http://www.lrw.net/~rw26 >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 14:22:02 PDT