Hi lodewijk
I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.
The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that whoever speaks for WMF links to it.
I am categorically saying
1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3 weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the local festive season when people are receptive to giving.
2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in users and readers.
3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016 ?.
4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because you are on the consuming side ?
If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?
https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email-campaign-is-a-master-...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_pr...
PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid "through" Jonesday.
warmly
David
On 9/11/17, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
hi david,
as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be whether you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not happen, unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you have that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the question at hand: the two stage loading problem.
lodewijk
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Joseph
Thanks for that link.
*NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF self-financing model.
Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm linking to the following messages
- *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki* https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html
*"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that the single most prominent case they defended in the period was apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber squatters" had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees (a not insubstantial amount).
Dave"*
- *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084276.html
*"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490 fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute: We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer to donate their domains (especially if they are community members),and, to date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type of case."*
- *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/11/29/wikimedia-foundation-annual-fundraiser/
"Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/, Germany https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-appeal-dismissed/, France https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/20/france-legal-victory/, and India."
including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not linked unlike the others So to sum up:
- The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916
for legal services in 2014-15
- WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of
that was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).
- WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up huge legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .
- I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party who was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached Austraila.
- So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.
Warmly
David
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this topic.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-Septe mber/088570.html
Regards Seddon
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
hi david,
i'll respond inline.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:08 AM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Hi lodewijk
I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.
thank you.
The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that whoever speaks for WMF links to it.
entirely different topic. lets no mingle that.
I am categorically saying
- In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the local festive season when people are receptive to giving.
fundraising happens all over the world at different times - nobody is denying that, and I see no problem with that.
- The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
users and readers.
that is your claim, so much is clear. Do you have anything to back that up in other accounts. Also, this does not consider the simple possibility of human error.
- Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016 ?.
I must say that seddon sounds better informed, and has a more plausable explanation, even if it were correct.
- Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because you are on the consuming side ?
I mostly have beef with unfounded or unhelpful criticism.
If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?
https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email- campaign-is-a-master-class-in-emotional-intelligence.html
i'm missing the relevance of the email campaign?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_ wikipedia_fundraising_promise/
i'm sorry, but where it comes to the register, i refuse to take their coverage serious.
PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid "through" Jonesday.
again, straying off-topic. lets not go there.
best, lodewijk
warmly
David
On 9/11/17, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
hi david,
as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be whether you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not
happen,
unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you
have
that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the question at hand: the two stage loading problem.
lodewijk
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany david.emrany@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Joseph
Thanks for that link.
*NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF self-financing model.
Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm linking to the following messages
- *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form
990
for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki* <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084254.html
*"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that the single most prominent case they defended in the period was apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber squatters" had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees (a not insubstantial amount).
Dave"*
- *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084276.html
*"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490 fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute: We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with
a
case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who
offer
to donate their domains (especially if they are community members),and,
to
date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type of case."*
- *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
foundation-annual-fundraiser/>
"Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/09/14/rosanah-fienngo/, Germany <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/08/09/victory-germany-
appeal-dismissed/>,
France https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/20/france-legal-victory/,
and
India."
including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not linked unlike the others So to sum up:
- The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916
for legal services in 2014-15
- WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of
that was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my
own
sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for
this
case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).
- WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up
huge
legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .
- I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party
who
was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached Austraila.
- So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.
Warmly
David
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon josephseddon@gmail.com wrote:
Hi David,
I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this topic.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-Septe mber/088570.html
Regards Seddon
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org