RE: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Joanna,

>
><The ICANN Board will meet anyhow, with or without public forum.
>Your suggestion to eliminate the physical meetings (with limited, but still
>important possibility of remote participation) will only lead to the
>situation in which ICANN will meet behind closed doors.>
>
>- Let them. It would be seriously underestimating the intelligence of the
>BoD to think they don't fully appreciate the ramifications of such a step.
>


I'm sure they do.
I'm not equally sure that *we* do.



><By the way, has any proposal of this kind be made for any other physical
>meeting like public congressional hearings? Should they also be banned 
>until
>we don't find a way to ensure remote participation at the same level than
>physical attendance?>
>
>- What relevance do hearings held by democratically elected officials have
>to do with ICANN in its present form?
>

I thought that the principle of remote participation should apply there as 
well.
Why not, BTW?


><I think that Prof. Froomkin proposal has some merit, and that we should
>think a way to improve remote participation, but that going to the extreme
>of refusing the "good" until we don't have the "better" is suicide.>
>
>I'm pleased to note that you support Prof. Froomkin's proposal that all
>questions are submitted online, including those by attendees, as do I.
>But I can't agree that to cancel physical in-person meetings unless remote
>participation is resolved, would be suicide, which I submit you have
>supported yourself by your own proposal to cancel one of the quarterly
>meetings and replace it with online only participation.

I just sait "it has some merit".
I support the effort to find better participation from people remotely.
I support, for instance, the effort of Ben & Berkman center.

But I think that we have to replace procedures that have some problem by 
procedures that have lesser, not bigger problems. Not to even mention the 
solution "no procedure" ;>).
In this sense, I believe that to propose an experiment for one of the 
meetings and let the other ones run as they are is something that can be 
accepted easier, and can have some value in evaluation further actions.
BTW, it does not have necessarily to "replace" a physical meeting, it can be 
just added. If the BoD meets telephonically in the months when there's no 
physical meeting, I can't see why we cannot add some online chat feature: 
for instance, Webcast the phone conversation (audio only, obviously), and 
allow comments.

A step forward, not an all-or-nothing solution.

>
>It's not rocket science to see where all this is leading. There really is 
>no
>need to rush around the world anymore. It's not even the money. It's the
>time. Why should anybody give up work and family for 3 days, when 3 hours
>will do the job? Actually, I thought canceling all 4 meetings and replacing
>them with remote participation was a more brilliant idea. Let the BoD meet
>in-person, but why anybody else?
>
>But that's just me.
>
>Regards
>Joanna

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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