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

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

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>   Yes it does.
>
> Great. Let's do it.

  Agreed!  Ben, you should be able to pick up the ball from here I believe?

>
>
> I would add that when the feed unfreezes, it must pick up again in real time
> (plus the 20 second delay), and not where it left off.
> The scribe should also note whose posts that have been cut from the public
> arena as part of standard procedures for the record.
>
> >
> >
> > Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by
> offering
> > at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.
>
>   ANd this was offered free of charge to ICANN before as Ben well
> knows.  It was however refused for some odd unknown reason....
>
> By whom and for what reason?

  Ben here I believe or the ICANN board at the time. As to the reason, I don't
know.  Your guess would be as good as mine....

>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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