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

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

Roberto and all remaining members,

It has often been said that those who can afford to spend time here do not
represent internet stakeholders, because if they did, their time would be
spent elsewhere....catch 22.  Well, guess what, I'm now too busy to give
time to this and therefore, I hope that by virtue of my future absence, my
past contributions will now count.

Regarding my proposals to date, I can assure you these have been submitted
with the best of intentions, with no hidden agenda, save to preserve the
rights of the individual domain name holder to have a say in how the
internet is run. I like to think that if something, anything, that I have
said here rings true for you, and as a direct result, is taken forward and
enacted, my time will have been well spent.

Please forgive me. I have a big business deal (for me) going through next
week and must defer meaningful participation until after March 6th. However
I can assure you that I will keep up to date with developments by reading
all posts as they come through.

In short, I am not abandoning my post, just taking leave, as one does from
time to time as necessary.

Sincerely,
Joanna Lane

>
><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