Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #231
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 10 2001         Volume 01 : Number 231

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:47:11 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Hello Joop,

Friday, February 09, 2001, 9:00:39 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
>>

> Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
> experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.

> One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
> leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey

> quote
>>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive to be heard is
>>so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might have for the
>>common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
> unquote

Lest anyone think that this message actually described real events
that Joop is referring to, it is taken out of context, and in no way
represents what actually happened in the IDNO, such as Joop is trying
to make it appear.

In doing so he ignores the real reasons, which have no bearing on this
list.

I really do not want to drag all of that into here, but if Joop tries
makes claims about the IDNO here, that do not match the facts or
actual documented history, they will be refuted.

That is not a personal attack, it is a refutation of statements made
by a person, not an attack on that person.

Something our co-chair needs to learn to understand as well.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 23:03:00 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Hello Eric,

Friday, February 09, 2001, 10:28:50 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> (i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
> whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
> cause shown. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
> follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
> NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.

Whether voting or not sets a higher standard than most decisions made
by the board.  It requires an actual majority of the full complement,
not just a majority of a quorum.  It is typical in major decisions
like this to require a higher standard to prevent abuse of it.
Perhaps now that you understand it better, you will see your criticism
of it was just a little off base.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:23:22 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: [email-masked] 
|>On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 4:01 PM
|>Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?
|>
|>
|>At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
|>
|>>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
|>
|>Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
|>experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.
|>
|>One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
|>leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey

Since you raise the issue of personal abuse within the context associated with the IDNO, I will point out that I have been on the receiving end of such abuse by the people supposed to maintain order within the IDNO.  References to the relevent archive posts can and may be be provided to anyone interested.  Personally, I have attacked the ignoring of process and the failure to perform in accordance with Charter directives.  I rarely stoop to personal attacks, although being human, sometimes fail the high ideals I strive for.

|>quote
|>>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive 
|>to be heard is so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might 
|>have for the common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
|>unquote

Interesting quote, I fail to see how it applies to myself being referred to as a "verbal terrrorist" by yourself in the IDNO.  I have not posted excessively regarding my personal opinions, if any one cares to look over the archives they will see that the majority of my posts involve pointing out process and procedural points.

|>It is vital for the GA, especially if a bigger role is contemplated, not to fall into this trap.
|>It means list- moderation that is both effective and just.
|>Not a trivial task.

I'm not sure I agree with list moderation, but I certainly agree that good strong list rules are important.  These have to objective in nature and easy to interpret.  There should not be any room for critism or disapproval.  As in the recent complaints about personal abuse highlight.  It can be very difficult if subjectivity is necessary to evaluate the validity of any complaints.  The list rules should spell out exactly what is considered abuse.  Calling someone a liar may be unacceptable, pointing out they are mistaken in their views, whilst some may take it as an accusation of being a liar is not in fact abuse, it is a part of the normal process during a discussion to reach agreement, even if the agreement is to disagree.  

List moderation should only be considered if the list is totally out of control.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:27:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Call for focus.....

This time I simply ask for a position mail from each nominated.  Long enough
before the voting, to debate.

Would they please disclose the obvious: memberships, employment, locale, and in
concrete terms so they can be held accountable, are the pro TM, IDNO, and the
like. For instance Mr. Crispin would obviously disclose his close association
with the IP folks. Mr. De Blanc his association with ccTLDs,  Ms. Park, Korea.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:49 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
> >How about the GA votes for and accepts an interim Chair until such time as
> the outside responsible body designs to address the issue.  I think it is
> high time the GA stood up and let itself be counted.
> >
>
> Agreed.
> There is no better way to convince the Board to amend the bylaws than by
> responsibly holding a successful election under our own steam.
> The WG-review proved that it can be done in 15 days, when the nominating
> process is web based.
>
> In this case the Melbourne Meeting  on April 10 should function as the
> logical  deadline.
>
> --Joop--
> www.idno.org
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 23:32:52 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

This is not in line with my criticism.  The criticism is about the Board having any
say whatsoever.

I am frightened by your failure to see that the board controlling the situation
wiithin the body is exactly what the recent hearing warned against.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Friday, February 09, 2001, 10:28:50 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > (i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
> > whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
> > cause shown. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
> > follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
> > NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.
>
> Whether voting or not sets a higher standard than most decisions made
> by the board.  It requires an actual majority of the full complement,
> not just a majority of a quorum.  It is typical in major decisions
> like this to require a higher standard to prevent abuse of it.
> Perhaps now that you understand it better, you will see your criticism
> of it was just a little off base.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:23:10 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Blast! Eric, you beat me to it!  Good points, indeed!

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Slow down please.
> Please review other "SO" restrictions and liberties. This may look like a leap
> forward but I along with members of the US committees and DoC are concerned with
> procedural and actual proper representation and  due process.
> Argued from the point of getting it through, this proposal has ceded it's power
> back to the NC.

> " members whose unique identities have been verified,(no way, the NC is left to
> determine the criteria) shall select its chair annually, and at such other times
> as the chair shall become vacant." What? no no no, reversion perhaps, interim
> perhaps, pro tem perhaps but not lame duck. especially if it is due to (i)(B).
>
> (i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
> whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
> cause shown. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
> follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
> NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.

Quite effectively so.

> I love the work that went into this but in that they were redrafted by a word
> expert these gaping holes should be reviewed, and not lightly.

I concur.

> Look at the IP's by laws they get to decide who is in or out as members much
> less their own reps.  They even get to have a bylaw that says that any
> recommendation made to the BoD of  ICANN reflect their views. This proposal
> requires we are lap dogs of the NC.

Yes, that was a most interesting and singular stipulation in the IPC
"Constituency's" bylaws!  It struck me that although I produce a great deal of
Intellectual Property, I cannot be a true member of the Intellectual Property
Constituency...  Ah... how those IP lawyer-types manage to do this sort of thing in
public is what amazes me most!  Truly shameless behaviour.  Tsk, tsk...

Will someone please remind me what exactly it is we're all so busy doing here?  What
is the orientation and intention in all this *activity*?  Can someone actually lift
me up out of the maze for a moment and remind me what the true purpose of all this
participation in these ICANN forums happens to be?

In Lingua Rosa,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 23:33:21 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Hello Eric,

Friday, February 09, 2001, 11:32:52 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> This is not in line with my criticism.  The criticism is about the Board having any
> say whatsoever.

> I am frightened by your failure to see that the board controlling the situation
> wiithin the body is exactly what the recent hearing warned against.

I think for now we have to accept that they WILL though.

And in that framework, we have to find a way to get some reform
through now.

It's a start, Eric.  If you expect nothing short of a full and
complete reform, and insist on that and only that, then we may as well
just continue with the apathetic level of participation we have seen
here before all of this started earlier this week, because it just
won't happen right now, and in this atmosphere.

I'm a realist, Eric.  Idealism is nice, but reality is where it is at.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:04:35 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Joanna and all,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Ben,
> Thank you for your enlightening post. Time is short now, so I'll be brief.
> If you can get rid of  - "Of course, not every message can be read or
> displayed.", you'll be half way to solving the problem IMO.
>
> I agree with Dassa that we should consider forwarding all comments as they
> are made online. Ideally, Liason needs about a 20 second delay between
> receiving the real time posts and screening to the public arena. That would
> allow sufficient time to pick up on any real abuse and temporarily
> disconnect, hopefully not crashing in the process, but freezing the screen
> in the public arena, cutting the offensive post, then unfreezing. I would be
> most interested to know if the technology exists to do this.

  Yes it does.

>
>
> Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by offering
> at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.

  ANd this was offered free of charge to ICANN before as Ben well
knows.  It was however refused for some odd unknown reason....

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dassa
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General
> Assembly
>
> This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but has
> any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and
> questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow all
> those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?  Then
> they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised by
> someone inhouse if relevent.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> |>Edelman
> |>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
> |>To: [email-masked]
> |>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
> |>the General
> |>Assembly
> |>
> |>
> |>Joanna Lane wrote:
> |>
> |>> ...
> |>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> |>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
> |>
> |>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re
> |>what specific
> |>steps to take to give additional influence to online
> |>participants.  To date,
> |>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA,
> |>Chair of the
> |>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
> |>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
> |>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote
> |>participants."
> |>
> |>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a
> |>rhythm, we are
> |>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives
> |>reflect this) at
> |>recognizing remote participants.
> |>
> |>
> |>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
> |>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
> |>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed
> |>some tension in
> |>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the
> |>meeting would prefer
> |>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are
> |>disappointed to be
> |>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe
> |>this factor can
> |>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
> |>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm
> |>confident that
> |>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to
> |>reduce subsequent
> |>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
> |>in-person attendees.
> |>
> |>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation
> |>system in order
> |>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
> |>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
> |>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote
> |>participation
> |>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
> |>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
> |>
> |>
> |>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote
> |>Participation
> |>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
> |>
> |>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical
> |>meeting room in
> |>Melbourne.
> |>
> |>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
> |>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
> |>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud,
> |>while others will
> |>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message
> |>can be read or
> |>displayed.
> |>
> |>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear
> |>and concise, and
> |>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is
> |>that messages
> |>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the
> |>microphones in
> |>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea
> |>to send lengthy
> |>prepared comments using the real-time comment system;
> |>instead, use ICANN's
> |>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the
> |>start of the
> |>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
> |>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered
> |>from each remote
> |>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in
> |>the meeting
> |>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
> |>commenters who have not already participated."
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>Ben Edelman
> |>
> |>--
> |>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |>Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:09:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

WXW and all remaining assembly members,

  Your response post here WXW sounds like a personal attack to me
anyway.  Anyone else think it does?

  So in that this response post of WXW's seems to be a personal attack,
all be it a rather long winded one, I would again like to request of the
DNSO Chair and Co-Chair to put a stop to WXW's personal attacks
on this list please....

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Joop,
>
> Friday, February 09, 2001, 9:00:39 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
>
> >>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
> >>
>
> > Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
> > experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.
>
> > One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
> > leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey
>
> > quote
> >>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive to be heard is
> >>so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might have for the
> >>common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
> > unquote
>
> Lest anyone think that this message actually described real events
> that Joop is referring to, it is taken out of context, and in no way
> represents what actually happened in the IDNO, such as Joop is trying
> to make it appear.
>
> In doing so he ignores the real reasons, which have no bearing on this
> list.
>
> I really do not want to drag all of that into here, but if Joop tries
> makes claims about the IDNO here, that do not match the facts or
> actual documented history, they will be refuted.
>
> That is not a personal attack, it is a refutation of statements made
> by a person, not an attack on that person.
>
> Something our co-chair needs to learn to understand as well.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:24:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I am in agreement with you here Eric.  It seems obvious to me what
your meaning was.  Of course, others mileage may vary as we can
also obviously see clearly....

Eric Dierker wrote:

> This is not in line with my criticism.  The criticism is about the Board having any
> say whatsoever.
>
> I am frightened by your failure to see that the board controlling the situation
> wiithin the body is exactly what the recent hearing warned against.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello Eric,
> >
> > Friday, February 09, 2001, 10:28:50 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > (i)(B) The Board may, with concurrence of a majority of all of its members,
> > > whether voting or not, remove the Chair of the General Assembly for good
> > > cause shown. (the argument was we could have a wing nut as chair. How does it
> > > follow the NC decides when a Chair needs to be removed? When they question the
> > > NC? (Yikes whether voting or not?????) That is carte Blanche.
> >
> > Whether voting or not sets a higher standard than most decisions made
> > by the board.  It requires an actual majority of the full complement,
> > not just a majority of a quorum.  It is typical in major decisions
> > like this to require a higher standard to prevent abuse of it.
> > Perhaps now that you understand it better, you will see your criticism
> > of it was just a little off base.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:27:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reform in the GA?

WXW and all remaining assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> Friday, February 09, 2001, 11:32:52 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > This is not in line with my criticism.  The criticism is about the Board having any
> > say whatsoever.
>
> > I am frightened by your failure to see that the board controlling the situation
> > wiithin the body is exactly what the recent hearing warned against.
>
> I think for now we have to accept that they WILL though.

  Why?

>
>
> And in that framework, we have to find a way to get some reform
> through now.

  Agreed!  The more the better.

>
>
> It's a start, Eric.  If you expect nothing short of a full and
> complete reform, and insist on that and only that, then we may as well
> just continue with the apathetic level of participation we have seen
> here before all of this started earlier this week, because it just
> won't happen right now, and in this atmosphere.

  Without complete reform we also will be faced with apathetic participation
also.  So, it would seem that a dilemma is upon the DNSO here.  Not
surprising though....

>
>
> I'm a realist, Eric.  Idealism is nice, but reality is where it is at.

  How true.  I hope you will take your own advice here in a more
broad fashion....

>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:45:08 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for focus.....

Dear all,

Greg Burton wrote on 09.02.01, 23:13:30:
> I believe that the following people have been nominated and either declined
> or not yet accpted - we have no acceptances yet that I am aware of.
> [...]
> Alexander Svensson -

I feel flattered and want to say thanks to those who 
nominated and supported me, but I'm afraid it's a "no 
thanks" from me, too -- I'd be happy to support Roberto or 
any other person who has shown to be equally well equipped 
to moderate and to keep the chair/moderator hat apart 
from his or her other hats. 

Best regards,
/// Alexander

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:40:15 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General Assembly

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Ben,
> Thank you for your enlightening post. Time is short now, so I'll be brief.
> If you can get rid of  - "Of course, not every message can be read or
> displayed.", you'll be half way to solving the problem IMO.
>
> I agree with Dassa that we should consider forwarding all comments as they
> are made online. Ideally, Liason needs about a 20 second delay between
> receiving the real time posts and screening to the public arena. That
would
> allow sufficient time to pick up on any real abuse and temporarily
> disconnect, hopefully not crashing in the process, but freezing the screen
> in the public arena, cutting the offensive post, then unfreezing. I would
be
> most interested to know if the technology exists to do this.

  Yes it does.

Great. Let's do it.

I would add that when the feed unfreezes, it must pick up again in real time
(plus the 20 second delay), and not where it left off.
The scribe should also note whose posts that have been cut from the public
arena as part of standard procedures for the record.

>
>
> Of course, we could achieve a better balance of input all-round by
offering
> at least some remote participation by live picture and sound.

  ANd this was offered free of charge to ICANN before as Ben well
knows.  It was however refused for some odd unknown reason....

By whom and for what reason?
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dassa
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 9:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the General
> Assembly
>
> This is only a quick thought on the matter and may not be practical but
has
> any consideration been given to having the remote participant comments and
> questions displayed on a large projector screen within the room to allow
all
> those present to see the comments etc in real time as they are posted?
Then
> they can be thought about within the context of the discussion and raised
by
> someone inhouse if relevent.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ben
> |>Edelman
> |>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:41 AM
> |>To: [email-masked]
> |>Subject: RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning
> |>the General
> |>Assembly
> |>
> |>
> |>Joanna Lane wrote:
> |>
> |>> ...
> |>> I'd like to see the wording strengthened to give online
> |>> participants equal rights to participate and vote.
> |>
> |>I'd appreciate some guidance from the folks on the list re
> |>what specific
> |>steps to take to give additional influence to online
> |>participants.  To date,
> |>I generally advise the chair of a session (Chair of the GA,
> |>Chair of the
> |>Names Council, or Chairman of the Board of ICANN) that "in the past, a
> |>successful way of recognizing remote participants has been to take two
> |>questions from the in-room microphone, then one from remote
> |>participants."
> |>
> |>Indeed, this often works well, and when we establish such a
> |>rhythm, we are
> |>most successful (in my estimation, and I think the archives
> |>reflect this) at
> |>recognizing remote participants.
> |>
> |>
> |>However, it's a highly imperfect system.  For example, when a remote
> |>participants' comment is a bit out of date or otherwise off-topic with
> |>respect to the current discussion, I have on occasion sensed
> |>some tension in
> |>the room, i.e. that the folks physically present in the
> |>meeting would prefer
> |>to continue discussion with the current topic, and are
> |>disappointed to be
> |>interrupted by the remote participants' comment.  I believe
> |>this factor can
> |>be especially strong when a meeting is short of time or when there's
> |>otherwise tension in the room.  When this tension arises, I'm
> |>confident that
> |>the chair feels it too, and the inevitable response is to
> |>reduce subsequent
> |>recognition of remote comments in favor of additional comments from
> |>in-person attendees.
> |>
> |>I'd be pleased to alter the text on the remote participation
> |>system in order
> |>to better advise remote participants how to submit the most effective
> |>comments, so as to get the most helpful response.  Alternatively, I'd
> |>happily consider some more fundamental change to the remote
> |>participation
> |>system, subject to constraints of implementation time and complexity,
> |>expected reliability, simplicity, perceived fairness, etc.
> |>
> |>
> |>The relevant wording on the current version of the "Remote
> |>Participation
> |>Comment Submission Form" is as follows:
> |>
> |>"Use this form to submit real-time comments to the physical
> |>meeting room in
> |>Melbourne.
> |>
> |>Messages sent though this form will be sent directly to the Remote
> |>Participation Liaison in the meeting room. The Liaison will review and
> |>screen these messages; some messages will be read aloud,
> |>while others will
> |>displayed on projection screens. Of course, not every message
> |>can be read or
> |>displayed.
> |>
> |>Therefore, it is important that real-time comments be clear
> |>and concise, and
> |>relevant to the topic currently being discussed. The idea is
> |>that messages
> |>sent in real time should be treated like comments made at the
> |>microphones in
> |>the meeting room. For that same reason, it's not a good idea
> |>to send lengthy
> |>prepared comments using the real-time comment system;
> |>instead, use ICANN's
> |>Public Comment Forum for comments written in advance of the
> |>start of the
> |>meeting. Finally, note that each comment submission is limited to 1000
> |>characters, and no more than one comment will be considered
> |>from each remote
> |>participant on each topic under consideration -- just like in
> |>the meeting
> |>room itself. We will also attempt to give preference to those remote
> |>commenters who have not already participated."
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>Ben Edelman
> |>
> |>--
> |>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |>Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #231
************************