RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

["Ben Edelman" <edelman@law.harvard.edu>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

> ...
> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> participants equal rights to participate and vote.

I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re what specific
steps to take to give additional influence to online participants.  To date,
I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA, Chair of the
Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote participants."

Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a rhythm, we are
most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives reflect this) at
recognizing remote participants.


However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed some tension in
the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the meeting would prefer
to continue discussion with the current topic, and are disappointed to be
interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe this factor can
be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm confident that
the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to reduce subsequent
recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
in-person attendees.

I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation system in order
to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote participation
system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.


The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote Participation
Comment Submission Form" is as follows:

"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical meeting room in
Melbourne.

Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud, while others will
displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message can be read or
displayed.

Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear and concise, and
relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is that messages
sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the microphones in
the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea to send lengthy
prepared comments using the real-time comment system; instead, use ICANN's
Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the start of the
meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
characters, and no more than one comment will be considered from each remote
participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in the meeting
room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
commenters who have not already participated."



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