Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ben and all remaining assembly members,

  Our members are pretty much dedicated to Michael's suggestion
"As is".


  I have suggested some specifics as to address Michaels suggestion
several times in the past, even for the very first ICANN Meeting in
Boston I believe.  Yet it seems that the than ICANN interim board, and
now the current ICANN Board were not adequately motivated in remote
participation or at least were not willing to avail themselves of the
technology that would provide for it as Michael has yet again suggested.
So again I will say the technology is there now to implement what
Michael Froomkin suggests.  Has been for two years as a matter of 
fact.  We use it in our meetings frequently.  I see no reason 
why ICANN cannot or should not.  Neither do our members by in large.

Ben Edelman wrote:

> Professor Froomkin's 2/16 comments ("everyone, including the people
> physically present, should have to submit comments via the 'remote' system")
> got the Berkman Center remote participation team thinking again about ideal
> methods of recognizing remote participants.
>
> In principle, we are (and always have been) in agreement with Froomkin's
> call for consistency between in-person and remote comments -- and we'd like
> to think the existing remote participation at least makes reasonable efforts
> on this front.  (For example, just as each in-person participant is asked to
> limit herself to one comment per agenda item, so too do we ask the same of
> online participants.)
>
> Our sense is that there's more than one way to achieve such consistency.
> Froomkin suggested one approach -- but we certainly don't think it's the
> only possibility.  Instead, we'd suggest an increasing reliance on
> first-come-first-served among remote participants' comments.  When coupled
> with the one-comment-per-topic-per-participant rule (and our underlying
> fraud detection systems), we think we can most likely implement this rule
> without too seriously skewing incentives.  (In principle, we'd be worried
> that first-come-first-served would encourage participants to compete in
> submitting their comments as early as possible.)  Of course,
> first-come-first-served has its necessary limits: We'll continue to screen
> for non-substantive submissions as well as for submissions not related to
> the current topic of the meeting; these comments will be included in the web
> archive but, we think, should not be considered for presentation to the
> assembled group.  Furthermore, if the chair should at some point call for
> questions or comments on a particular limited subject, we'd favor remote
> submissions on that topic, just as folks queued at a microphone would yield
> to someone intending to speak in person on the specified subject.
>
> Again, I'm interested to hear what folks on the list thing of this
> alternative approach.
>
> (The more we thought about voting, as contemplated by my last post with this
> same subject line, the more concerned we became that, whatever the merits of
> voting, it just didn't map to a practice used in the in-person meeting.  So,
> despite its initial, we ultimately came to think that voting just wasn't
> appropriate in this context.)
>
> Finally, it's been suggested that some participants (for example, non-native
> speakers) might prefer to ask questions in writing (via a computer terminal)
> rather than at a microphone.  This is a very reasonable suggestion --
> indeed, one first (to my knowledge) made by Professor Zittrain at the ICANN
> meeting in Singapore in March 1999, where he asked me to provide a computer
> terminal for that purpose.  We continued to do so in Berlin (see picture at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/mmarchive/ICANN_Berlin/Meeting/
> Comments%2Ejpg>) and have done so sporadically since then; interest seemed
> to be relatively low, and so we didn't make this a priority.  However, in
> MdR in Nov 2000, we did have three such terminals in place -- one in each of
> the two overflow rooms in the hotel basement (overflow rooms not heavily
> used, however), and one on the far side of the front of the room (near the
> audience microphone) that was unfortunately generally taken over by folks
> checking their email, etc.  I've made a note to do better in Melbourne -- to
> see to it that the terminal remains dedicated to this purpose, and that it's
> well-publicized on the projection screen between meetings.
>
> Ben Edelman
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html