Re: [ga] remote participation

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I wonder if I've hit a nerve?

1) Persons whose company attends every meeting, have an interest in
maintaining the in-person advantage.

2) Local attendees will still benefit from constituency meetings, hallways
and all the other good things - they will not lose anything to which they
are actually entitled.  Indeed, they will still have a full opportunity to
participate via a handy terminal.

3) A system that levels the playing field will actually produce a radical
increase in participation since outsiders will have an equal shot with
insiders.

4) Most importantly, a level playing field will remove the enormous repeat
player advantage that those with expense accounts have in the current
system.


On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 
> While I support a better mechanism to include remote participation, the
> reality is that each meeting draws heavily from the local/regional
> community, and many people to make extraordinary efforts to attend and
> participate.  
> 
> Let's not create a disincentive for folks to make the effort to participate
> face to face in our efforts to improve remote participation.
> 
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:26 PM
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the
> GeneralAssembly
> 
> 
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> > 
> > I have a very simple suggestion that is fair to everyone.  Please note in
> > reading what follows that I am serious about this.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Professor Froomkin, I completely agree with you on
> this wise.  Personally, I do not think any special
> emphasis should be placed on the so-called "ICANN
> Experience" of an in-person audience.  If
> anything, such emphasis serves to paint ICANN
> Meetings as some kind of travelling roadshow. 
> There is simply too much at stake in ICANN to make
> exclusive allowances for the in-house audience, no
> matter what their presence at the meeting cost
> them.  
> 
> I think your proposed measure would go a long way
> in establishing a more level playing field within
> the instrumentality of ICANN Meetings, especially
> with regards to audience participation. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 	Hermes Network, Inc.
> --
> 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-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
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's cool here.<--


--
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