Re: [ga] remote participation

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jeff,
I think Andy gave the response. Face to Face filters bad words and
extentric assumptions. As long as GA participants cannot moderate
themselves and realize they are read by people going to use their
own words against themeselves in other places, I think the partipants
community is not mature enough.

The only solution would be that people register their questions before
the meeting so they may be filtered (what would manipulate the meeting)
or world's people (but also fooor's peole) be discriminated upon their
qualification.

I think the best would be that the meeting jokey receives all the
questions from the world a few days before and that a non partisan
committee organize them to make sure that most of the subjects
are covered (possibly through post meeting posting). These questions
could be published and represent 50% of the time as they would
certainly articulate with questions of the floor. Then all the questions
from the meeting jokey and from the floor, with responses would be
agregated with all the questions from the world in a meeting "FAQ"
report. When you think of it iy would not require much work and
some software could be found/designed to help that processs.

1. questions would not be duplicated for small details
2. no risk of bad words
3. just a working split: interested people from the world would
     provide the basic questions, the people from the floor would
     provide the dynamic of the meeting. The meeting jokey could
     follow good time saver agenda for the meeting.
4. interactive questions from the world could also be presented
     by partnering proxies receiving e-mails from their supporters.
     (I note that this what is made all over the world for auctions
     and using proxies is the best century tested solution).

What I observe is that practically all the "democracy" we want
to impose on the net is inadequate and that we have to forge
"net-democracy" rules/usages. The first difference is the time
lost in using "electronic aids" and the degradation of the quality
of the exchange because decision making processes are used
by many as training processes.

The result is that real decisions cannot be taken elsewhere
than in "secret" committees. Usually the kindergarten is not
the place where you manage a School.

We should accept that net-democracy calls for representatives.
We have the entire world: 350.000.000 of users and we want
every of them to be a Congressman. We have first to find
mechanism to select/elect reps. Traveling costs is a way to
make sure that the person thought he was competent or
motivated enough for the cost of the travel to be worth, or
that his peers thought it was worth to spend the money of
the company for him. It is certainly not the best, nor the only
way. But until now it works.

This is why I would advocate solution where we *add* a new
concpet, test and valiate it, rather than any *replacing* solutions.

Jefsey


On 10:09 18/02/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Dave and all remaining assembly members,
>
>Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > At 05:38 AM 2/16/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > >I think everyone, including the people physically present, should have to
> > >submit comments via the 'remote' system and be subject to the same
> > >filtering.  This will remove the otherwise highly unfair advantage that
> > >wealth and physical proximity bring to attendees.  If the system of
> > >handling remove comments is fair enough for remote participants, it should
> > >be fair enough for physical participants.  If it is not, this system will
> > >ensure that it quickly reaches that standard.
> > >
> > >Anything less is second-class status.
> >
> > A major purpose of the face-to-face meetings is more efficient exchange.
>
>   This is a matter of some differing opinion.  Be that as it may, equality
>in face to face with Remote participation is suppose to be a goal of
>ICANN.
>
> >
> >
> > The technology for remote participation is still quite limited.
>
>   In your opinion maybe.  The facts are quite different however...
>
> >
> >
> > So your suggestion is to LIMIT EVERYONE to a less efficient mode?
>
>   No, it is to achieve more equity and improve efficiency.
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Professor Procrustes, but it would not be a good idea for any of
> > us to lie down in that bed...
>
>Instead you are proposing a less comfortable one perhaps?
>
> >
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
>--
>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