... Let's get real. In the scheme of things, the amount of money involved here is kind of piddling. A lot of people that talk about this think a million dollars is a big deal.

I'm going to venture a guess that ICANN feels that the elections had too high a percentage of "hackers" participating, and this lead to the election of "hackers" to their board, whom they don't feel represent the real user community. They probably have no idea how to get the people they feel are the user community interested enough to participate, so they have concluded that elections don't work.

Its interesting that Dyson is trying to distance herself from ICANN, while still supporting it. Playing both sides? Or maybe she feels that the end may come, and doesn't want to be swept away with ICANN when it happens.

Salon.com Technology | Esther Dyson defends ICANN

Howard Rheingold has a new book coming out in October. (Amazon claims it will be November.) Included here is Howard's summary of the concept. There are links to a recent NYT article and a longer article at Edge.org. Also included is the table of contents for the new book. There is an entire chapter on "the evolution of reputation."

Smart mobs emerge when communication and computing technologies amplify human talents for cooperation. The impacts of smart mob technology already appear to be both beneficial and destructive.

The people who make up smart mobs cooperate in ways never before possible ...

Media cartels and government agencies are seeking to reimpose the regime of the broadcast era. Are the populations of tomorrow going to be users or consumers?

Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, by Howard Rheingold

Don Kennedy, editor at _Science_, argues against such a proposal.

For the record, the computer security industry has already covered this problem. There may be some lessons there.

1. People often publish for the purpose of recognition. When you are dealing with sensitive subjects some responsibility must be taken. Publish your results to those who need to know, and make them more public if you feel the public needs to know.

2. When publishing to the public, make sure that you alter your directions in such a matter that experienced scientists can replicate your results, but inexperienced scientists won't be able to figure them out.

3. Uphold ethical/moral standards in your profession.

4. Do not create unreasonable barriers to entry for people who just want to learn.

5. Do not allow capable, creative people to wind up in a situation where the easiest path to economic security or intellectual freedom is by working for the enemy. Cases in point: Bolivian virus writers, Russian nuke scientists, the Canadian guy who built long range cannons for Iraq after the U.S. fired him...

It is possible for us to act responsibly, and this IS a two way street. There is a balance that can be obtained which provides barriers to terrorists without creating barriers to free thought. The difficulty is in getting everyone to agree on what enlightened self interest consists of. Frankly, scientists are more likely to "get it" then many other communities. However, this will be hard.

Scientists Worry Journals May Aid Terrorists

Warren Buffett chastises the nation's CEO's in today's NYT.

There is a crisis of confidence today about corporate earnings reports and the credibility of chief executives. And it's justified.

Without blushing, almost all CEO's have told their shareholders that options are cost-free.

To clean up their act, CEO's don't need "independent" directors, oversight committees or auditors absolutely free of conflicts of interest. They simply need to do what's right.

CEO's ... should quit talking about some bad apples and reflect instead on their own behavior.

[CEO's] talk principle, but, for most, their motive is pocketbook.

Who Really Cooks the Books?

He made no mention of plain old telephone service.

Nothing about POTS, but also nothing about profits. Growth is not cheap in these markets, and the new customers remaining to be won are not particularly valuable.

BellSouth shares lost 18% yesterday on news that net income was down 67% for the quarter. That's a four year low. If you thought the RBOCs' cash flow immunized them against the telecom collapse, think again.

Regional Bell Giants No Longer Invulnerable

"The media ... is very good at satisfying generic interests but isn't good at satisfying each individual's very unique, specific interest."

Investors May Have Repudiated the Internet, but Consumers Have Not

Shareholders, who owned what was once one of the world's most valuable companies, worth more than $100 billion at its peak, are expected to be virtually wiped out.

Largest. Bankruptcy. Ever. (At least for the next few months.)

Bankruptcy at WorldCom Is the Largest in U.S. History

"Expect the telecoms revival to come riding on the back of an unexpected technology that nobody in the industry has yet heard of. "

Just read the last few paragraphs.

Economist on the future of the Telecom Industry

"The broader failing of McKinsey and its acolytes at Enron is their assumption that an organization's intelligence is simply a function of the intelligence of its employees. They believe in stars, because they don't believe in systems."

This is a really good article. It gave me a good deal of insite into alot of the experiences I had at iAsiaWorks. Its not light reading. Only if you are interested in thinking about how organizations work.

The problem with focusing on 'star performers.'

RICHARD F. MOLLICA, M.D.
Boston, July 14, 2002
The writer is director, Harvard Program in Refugee Trauma, Massachusetts General Hospital.

The new U.S. federal guidelines for proper and legal thought will be published next Wednesday...

Scientists and Terrorists