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

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Ben,
Thank you for your enlightening post. Time is short now, so I'll be brief.
If you can get rid of  - "Of course, not every message can be read or
displayed.", you'll be half way to solving the problem IMO.

I agree with Dassa that we should consider forwarding all comments as they
are made online. Ideally, Liason needs about a 20 second delay between
receiving the real time posts and screening to the public arena. That would
allow sufficient time to pick up on any real abuse and temporarily
disconnect, hopefully not crashing in the process, but freezing the screen
in the public arena, cutting the offensive post, then unfreezing. I would be
most interested to know if the technology exists to do this.

Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by offering
at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.

Sincerely,
Joanna


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dassa
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:08 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General
Assembly


This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but has
any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and
questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow all
those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?  Then
they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised by
someone inhouse if relevent.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ben
|>Edelman
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
|>To: ga@dnso.org
|>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
|>the General
|>Assembly
|>
|>
|>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
|>
|>

--
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

--
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