Re: [ga] Listen-only ports

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On 8 Nov 2002, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Why, Danny? Why make the NC go to the added expense of making telephone
> bridge ports available for a non-participatory meeting when you can
> listen to the entirety of the meeting within an hour after it adjourns?

While that does make sense, the rules that Danny cited use the word 
"attendance" - which to my mind tends to mean at the time the meeting is 
actually in progress.

There is value in real-time listening - I know that when I'm up there at
the ICANN meetings that I'm in receipt of a continuous stream of items
that comment, often quite sagely, on the matter and discussion in
progress.

I would suggest that open phone meetings are a lesser-cost option than
open physical meetings.  It seems that by selecting a lesser-cost option
the DNSO becomes obligated to take reasonable steps to preserve those
positive characteristics that are lost when that lesser-cost option is
used.

In addition, because the DNSO is still as much a part of ICANN as is
ICANN's own "staff" who seem to relish spending tens of thousands of
dollars on items of questionable value, the full entity of ICANN ought to
be bearing the expense rather than merely helping the DNSO get
reduced-rate phone services.

		--karl--

--
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