Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #244
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 244

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

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:30:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

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.

Having been to many such meetings I see many of the same faces at every event.

I challenge you to support your assertion.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 15:37:36 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] remote participation

Chile had a larger Latin American attendance, including drawing from the
local community. As did Cairo... but what is the argument about, Patrick? I
didn't say I disagreed, I said, let's not override the in person
participation.

There is no need to treat this as a disagreement.  I'm sure you didn't mean
to do that.  :-)

but, in any case, I won't be in a position to argue about it for several
days... I'm traveling and oossibly less online a bit for a few days.

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 3:30 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'Sotiropoulos'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

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.

Having been to many such meetings I see many of the same faces at every
event.

I challenge you to support your assertion.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/
- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 14:53:17 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 2:22 pm -0500 2/17/01, 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.

Let's realise, Marilyn, that very few people "make extraordinary efforts to
attend and participate".

Most of them are paid to be there.

The ones you know made "extraordinary efforts" to attend are the ones you
_don't_ see in the Business/First Class queues at the airport after the
meetings.

Having a survey done at Melbourne airport would probably gather some
interesting statistics.

One advantage of remote participation is the avoidance of having to share a
venue with those creepy IP people. Saves having to steal sick-bags during
the incoming flight for use when they start speaking.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 15:26:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Marilyn and all remaining assembly members,

  I agree that there there shouldn't be any disincentive for folks to
attend ICANN meeting personally.  However the converse is also
true that remote participants should also not be disadvantaged.
Currently and thus far, remote participants have been disadvantaged
greatly.  Hence, it seems both logical and fair that Michael Froomkin's
suggestion be implemented and become policy.  It would serve potentially
two purposes IMHO.  First, it would put all participants on a equal basis,
which is fair.  Second, it would likely improve ICANN's participation,
implementation of remote participation technology, which would eventually
benefit all or the Internet Community, and it would improve vastly ICANN
image on a global basis.  Therefore I believe, as do our members, that
Michale Froomkin's suggestion has the potential of solving, at least to some
degree, the issue of disenfranchisement.

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:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:26 PM
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 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 [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, 17 Feb 2001 13:20:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] remote participation

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

> Chile had a larger Latin American attendance, including drawing from the
> local community. As did Cairo... but what is the argument about, Patrick? I
> didn't say I disagreed, I said, let's not override the in person
> participation.
>
> There is no need to treat this as a disagreement.  I'm sure you didn't mean
> to do that.  :-)

Not at all.

However I am in complete agreement with those that believe physical
participants have long received an unequal share of representation at these
events(mike time, etc.) Further, many of those participants (in my experience)
are the same familiar faces that are seen at each and every such event.

If you are suggesting that local attendees(those native to the region) are
afforded some level of extra consideration in receiving time, I think I'd
probably agree with that. What I'm not in favor of is the status quo,
where individuals and/or representatives of corporations who can afford to
globetrot receive undue consideration by virtue of their merely
being physically present.

What would you suggest to correct the current inequities?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 17:27:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Andy and all remaining assembly members,

  Andy, I strongly disagree with you tone and snide attack on those that
choose to participate in ICANN meetings as you did below.  Please
discontinue this sort of stuff as it adds nothing of a constructive nature
to the discussion and debate on this thread.  As such, I would like to
ask the chair to consider some appropriate action with respect to
the DNSO GA list rules towards your name calling last paragraph
in your response here to the assembly members and Marilyn in particular.

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 2:22 pm -0500 2/17/01, 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.
>
> Let's realise, Marilyn, that very few people "make extraordinary efforts to
> attend and participate".
>
> Most of them are paid to be there.
>
> The ones you know made "extraordinary efforts" to attend are the ones you
> _don't_ see in the Business/First Class queues at the airport after the
> meetings.
>
> Having a survey done at Melbourne airport would probably gather some
> interesting statistics.
>
> One advantage of remote participation is the avoidance of having to share a
> venue with those creepy IP people. Saves having to steal sick-bags during
> the incoming flight for use when they start speaking.
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:45:48 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

On 14:22 17/02/01 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>
>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.  
>

Marilyn, Michael , Sotiris and all,

Having been one of those who has truly made these extraordinary efforts to
be in Singapore, Berlin, Santiago and Yokohama, but also tried to
participate remotely in MdR and Cairo,  I very much see the point of "the
level playing field" that Michael makes.

The f2f participations is experienced as a "battle of attrition", whereby
the people who have to travel unfunded by expense accounts are slowly
"whittled away" from the meetings.

What Marilyn says about "the local community" is true (especially it was so
in Santiago, where the university had done commendable work in informing
people from all over Latin America),  but in the end, the people that speak
and debate are always the same old crowd , some of whom also deign to speak
here online. (good on Marilyn, Ken Stubs, Patric Greenwell, Roberto and
others) 
This is because the issues are not local, they are global and there are
still the same as on day one of "newCo".

>Let's not create a disincentive for folks to make the effort to participate
>face to face in our efforts to improve remote participation.
>

You can't be serious here Marilyn. A disincentive? 
If Michael, Sotiris and all those who would love to participate f2f, but
can't, can succeed with an experiment that can make remote participants
truly feel part of the meetings and able to give and get the same input as
local participants, this would be a major riveting experience with Net
enabled technology.
This alone would make it worthwhile to sit through a lot of the more boring
stuff that is presented during ICANN meetings.

I think it is still a pipedream, but the principle is valid and the
technology is moving fast.
The real problem is us ourselves: can we cope with the sensory overload?

>Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:26 PM
>Cc: [email-masked]
>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 [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
> 
- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 20:34:46 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> Andy and all remaining assembly members,
> 
>   Andy, I strongly disagree with you tone and snide attack on those that
> choose to participate in ICANN meetings as you did below.  

Although I did find myself sympathizing with what
Andy was saying (and I actually laughed aloud), I
can see how some people might find the manner
offensive.  The particularly graphic description
"those creepy IP people" may not have been
entirely necessary.  Certainly, the sick-bags were
an exaggeration! In any case, since it comes down
to a question of adjectives, I suggest we be a
little more careful how we choose to characterize
and paint.  I say this, even though I also believe
that nobody should be taking anything that is said
in these forums personally.  

[Also, I must admit, I think it would be
interesting if somebody did do a survey, or
collect stats at Melbourne Airport.]

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes network, Inc.

> >
> > Let's realise, Marilyn, that very few people "make extraordinary efforts to
> > attend and participate".
> >
> > Most of them are paid to be there.
> >
> > The ones you know made "extraordinary efforts" to attend are the ones you
> > _don't_ see in the Business/First Class queues at the airport after the
> > meetings.
> >
> > Having a survey done at Melbourne airport would probably gather some
> > interesting statistics.
> >
> > One advantage of remote participation is the avoidance of having to share a
> > venue with those creepy IP people. Saves having to steal sick-bags during
> > the incoming flight for use when they start speaking.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew P. Gardner
> > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> > --
> > 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
- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 22:23:28 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > Andy and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   Andy, I strongly disagree with you tone and snide attack on those that
> > choose to participate in ICANN meetings as you did below.
>
> Although I did find myself sympathizing with what
> Andy was saying (and I actually laughed aloud), I
> can see how some people might find the manner
> offensive.

  ALthough I as it seems did you find ANdy's comments
amusing in some aspects (I laughed aloud when I read them
as well) the DNSO has a set of list rules which if they are
to be effective and carry any credence, than they must be
observed by all equally and the consequences of flaunting
them must also be borne by those abusing or otherwise
violating them, applied equally as well.

>  The particularly graphic description
> "those creepy IP people" may not have been
> entirely necessary.  Certainly, the sick-bags were
> an exaggeration! In any case, since it comes down
> to a question of adjectives, I suggest we be a
> little more careful how we choose to characterize
> and paint.  I say this, even though I also believe
> that nobody should be taking anything that is said
> in these forums personally.

  I agree that no one should take anything said or
posted in any forum in a personal way unless it is obviously
stated as such.  I believe given the verbiage that Andy used
the personal aspect was clear.

>
>
> [Also, I must admit, I think it would be
> interesting if somebody did do a survey, or
> collect stats at Melbourne Airport.]'

  I couldn't agree more.  I can also think of a number
of other airports where such a survey might be interesting
an useful...  >;)

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Hermes network, Inc.
>
> > >
> > > Let's realise, Marilyn, that very few people "make extraordinary efforts to
> > > attend and participate".
> > >
> > > Most of them are paid to be there.
> > >
> > > The ones you know made "extraordinary efforts" to attend are the ones you
> > > _don't_ see in the Business/First Class queues at the airport after the
> > > meetings.
> > >
> > > Having a survey done at Melbourne airport would probably gather some
> > > interesting statistics.
> > >
> > > One advantage of remote participation is the avoidance of having to share a
> > > venue with those creepy IP people. Saves having to steal sick-bags during
> > > the incoming flight for use when they start speaking.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew P. Gardner
> > > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> > > --
> > > 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
> --
> 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, 17 Feb 2001 22:17:19 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 05:38 AM 2/16/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>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.

A major purpose of the face-to-face meetings is more efficient exchange.

The technology for remote participation is still quite limited.

So your suggestion is to LIMIT EVERYONE to a less efficient mode?

Thank you, Professor Procrustes, but it would not be a good idea for any of 
us to lie down in that bed...

d/

- --
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, 17 Feb 2001 22:11:56 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 12:30 PM 2/17/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>Having been to many such meetings I see many of the same faces at every event.
>
>I challenge you to support your assertion.

you said "many".  you did not say "all".

those other faces are typically local.

d/

- --
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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:09:59 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 05:38 AM 2/16/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >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.
>
> A major purpose of the face-to-face meetings is more efficient exchange.

  This is a matter of some differing opinion.  Be that as it may, equality
in face to face with Remote participation is suppose to be a goal of
ICANN.

>
>
> The technology for remote participation is still quite limited.

  In your opinion maybe.  The facts are quite different however...

>
>
> So your suggestion is to LIMIT EVERYONE to a less efficient mode?

  No, it is to achieve more equity and improve efficiency.

>
>
> Thank you, Professor Procrustes, but it would not be a good idea for any of
> us to lie down in that bed...

Instead you are proposing a less comfortable one perhaps?

>
>
> d/
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:55:37 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 1:44 am -0800 2/18/01, Bob Davis wrote:
>Mr Gardner and everyone,
>
>  Mr. Gardner, I would appritiate greatly as I believe others would,
>that
>you please stop your insinuations in this manner.  I would also ask
>the list moderator to take some action on Mr. Gardner's name calling
>poor behavior.  Thank you.

OK. Let's make a deal.

If Bob Davis can prove that he exists and is not a figment up Jeff Williams
imagination, I'll "stop my insinuations in this matter".

Has anyone here (apart from Jeff Williams and his other alter ego's) ever
met personally with Bob Davis?

If this person cannot prove that he exists, I call on the list chair to
delete him from the list.

NB: Jeff Williams is widely known (for a long time) to be an incessant
cross-poster. Check out the CC: list of "Bob Davis'" latest email.

>Bob Davis
>
>Shop online without a credit card
>http://www.rocketcash.com
>RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

NetZero, where you can establish a fake identity, in a feeble attempt to
support your continued attempts to make out that your imaginary entity INEG
has 112,000 members.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:05:13 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

>   ALthough I as it seems did you find ANdy's comments
> amusing in some aspects (I laughed aloud when I read them
> as well) the DNSO has a set of list rules which if they are
> to be effective and carry any credence, than they must be
> observed by all equally and the consequences of flaunting
> them must also be borne by those abusing or otherwise
> violating them, applied equally as well.

I couldn't agree with you more, Jeff.  But, I do
confess, I am glad to see that some of us still
have a sense of humour.  :-)

> 
> >  The particularly graphic description
> > "those creepy IP people" may not have been
> > entirely necessary.  Certainly, the sick-bags were
> > an exaggeration! In any case, since it comes down
> > to a question of adjectives, I suggest we be a
> > little more careful how we choose to characterize
> > and paint.  I say this, even though I also believe
> > that nobody should be taking anything that is said
> > in these forums personally.
> 
>   I agree that no one should take anything said or
> posted in any forum in a personal way unless it is obviously
> stated as such.  I believe given the verbiage that Andy used
> the personal aspect was clear.

Well, and NOT that I'm condoning his action, at
least he didn't have a go at anybody by name...
<whew> But still, I agree he was wrong, in an
impersonal personal kind of way, which makes it
just as wrong as any other kind.  I am completely
with you Jeff here on this.

> > [Also, I must admit, I think it would be
> > interesting if somebody did do a survey, or
> > collect stats at Melbourne Airport.]'
> 
>   I couldn't agree more.  I can also think of a number
> of other airports where such a survey might be interesting
> an useful...  >;)

Probably every other airport in the world, every
major international stop, anyway.  No, I'll be
honest, I had pictures of the first class vs. no
class service and experience of an ICANN meeting
in mind.  I simply began to imagine that there
can/might be a great disparity between the way
some people may "enjoy" it.  (I wonder if anybody
flies economy and sleeps in a hostel?)  But,
life's only as good as you live it.  You and me
Jeff, I think we understand that Andy was just
venting, even though we agree he was wrong.  Every
one's here for the reading, not the hard
feelings.  

I second (or whatever it is that I'm doing),
Jeff's call for recognition of the ill-favoured,
and misbegotten nature of Andy's last email to the
List.  I am calling for Andy to apologize for
making me laugh, and offending certain other
unnamed individuals.  Andy, please consider
retracting your rather shocking and ill-considered
remarks, and offering apologies for your actions.

Earnestly,

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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:53:08 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Joop Teernstra wrote on 18.02.01, 13:45:48:
> If Michael, Sotiris and all those who would love to participate f2f, but
> can't, can succeed with an experiment that can make remote participants
> truly feel part of the meetings and able to give and get the same input as
> local participants, this would be a major riveting experience with Net
> enabled technology.
> This alone would make it worthwhile to sit through a lot of the more boring
> stuff that is presented during ICANN meetings.

Having been a remote 'partipant' so far, listening to 
RealAudio, looking at transcripts and watching video 
streams (thanks to Ben and the Berkman Center team!),
I obviously see the value of a better system of remote
participation. Or rather: of remote *participation*
instead of *watching*. 

However, the proposal that the in-person participants take
part in the meeting as remote participants seems to take 
away all the advantages of physical meetings; why should 
there be physical meetings after all? The local community 
may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but 
I take it that face-to-face communication generally still 
gets more work done. 

The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise 
ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person 
GA can, why doesn't it get work done? (Yes, I am a member, 
so yes, this is also self-criticism.) It would be a 
disappointment if we extended this to the physical meetings.
There is obviously a difference in that the meetings, if
only remote participation was allowed, would be heavily
moderated. But I remain skeptical whether this is sufficient.

Instead of turning the physical meetings into a moderated
online chat, we should focus on the improvement of the GA list.
(And the unmoderated chat is totally discouraging; have a 
look at the log files if you have any doubts.)

> I think it is still a pipedream, but the principle is valid and the
> technology is moving fast.
> The real problem is us ourselves: can we cope with the sensory overload?
Agree.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #244
************************