Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #245
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 245

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:18:28 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Admin] Info on "Bob Davis" (Re: [ga] remote participation)

At 01:55 18/02/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
>If this person cannot prove that he exists, I call on the list chair to
>delete him from the list.

"Bob Davis" was permanently banned from the list in February 2000, for 
inability to prove that he was not Jeff Williams.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:32:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Andy and all remaining assembly members,

  I am sorry Andrew, but I don't make "Deals" with individuals
that make false claims against my person.  I doubt that Bob does
either.  I don't make "Deals" with individuals, whom make slurs
against other members of this ML or anyone else for that matter,
such as you did earlier towards Marilyn M. on this ML and as you
have done towards Joop.  It just that simple.  Besides, there is no
"Deal" to make here.  Bob is Bob, and I am me.

Andy Gardner wrote:

> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 04:40:14 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Sotiris and all remaining assembly members,

Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 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.  :-)

  I am glad to hear or read that you do.  >;)  And
of course, as I stated I did find Andy's comments
amusing, but most likely not for the same reasons
you did.  But amusing none the less.  However to
use someone/assembly member as an object of
amusement on a serious subject such as this one,
is frankly, out of line.

>
>
> >
> > >  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.

  Again, glad to hear/read 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?)

  Good question.  I am sure not many of the ICANN
Board do.  >;)

>  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.

  Agreed.  But promoting hard feelings through baiting
such as Andy did, is not expectable behavior, unless
you are an adolescent.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes please do Andy.  Recant post haste!

>
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 04:49:12 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Alex and all remaining assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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*.

  RealAudio is a poor choice for remote participation
at ICANN meetings or for that matter any other kind of
large scale meetings.  A better choice would be Internet
Video Conferencing.  ComDex uses this all the time.

>
>
> 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

  I think as do our members, that physical meetings are a good
thing.  But remote participants should not be relegated to second
class status, as obviously been the case either.  And there is no
need for remote participants to be so relegated.

>
> may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but
> I take it that face-to-face communication generally still
> gets more work done.

  Most of the work done for ICANN meetings is done before
the meeting even takes place...

>
>
> 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.

 Moderated yes.  Heavily moderated, no.

>
>
> Instead of turning the physical meetings into a moderated
> online chat, we should focus on the improvement of the GA list.

  Improvement is a relative thing.  But I agree that improvement
for the GA list is a good idea.  However this has been tried before
and ended up in bickering instead of progress.

>
> (And the unmoderated chat is totally discouraging; have a
> look at the log files if you have any doubts.)

  Yes this is true.  I know I participated.  Terrible.

>
>
> > 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 04:52:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Admin] Info on "Bob Davis" (Re: [ga] remote participation)

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

  How does somebody half way across the Globe PROVE he is not
somebody else?  I sure don't know how that can be done.  Do you?
At any rate, Bob is Bob.  I am me.  Can you prove you are not Roberto,
Harald?  You both sound and type so much alike...

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 01:55 18/02/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >If this person cannot prove that he exists, I call on the list chair to
> >delete him from the list.
>
> "Bob Davis" was permanently banned from the list in February 2000, for
> inability to prove that he was not Jeff Williams.
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 12:25:52 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Admin] Info on "Bob Davis" (Re: [ga] remote participation)

At 04:52 18/02/2001 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Harald and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   How does somebody half way across the Globe PROVE he is not
>somebody else?  I sure don't know how that can be done.  Do you?

Having a single person who is not himself suspected of being a Jeff 
Williams clone claim to have met both "Bob Davis" and "Jeff Williams" would 
surely be an indication. Other examples are in the list moderation rules.

I will not comment further on this matter on the list.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:07:57 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Dear Jeff,
I think Andy gave the response. Face to Face filters bad words and
extentric assumptions. As long as GA participants cannot moderate
themselves and realize they are read by people going to use their
own words against themeselves in other places, I think the partipants
community is not mature enough.

The only solution would be that people register their questions before
the meeting so they may be filtered (what would manipulate the meeting)
or world's people (but also fooor's peole) be discriminated upon their
qualification.

I think the best would be that the meeting jokey receives all the
questions from the world a few days before and that a non partisan
committee organize them to make sure that most of the subjects
are covered (possibly through post meeting posting). These questions
could be published and represent 50% of the time as they would
certainly articulate with questions of the floor. Then all the questions
from the meeting jokey and from the floor, with responses would be
agregated with all the questions from the world in a meeting "FAQ"
report. When you think of it iy would not require much work and
some software could be found/designed to help that processs.

1. questions would not be duplicated for small details
2. no risk of bad words
3. just a working split: interested people from the world would
     provide the basic questions, the people from the floor would
     provide the dynamic of the meeting. The meeting jokey could
     follow good time saver agenda for the meeting.
4. interactive questions from the world could also be presented
     by partnering proxies receiving e-mails from their supporters.
     (I note that this what is made all over the world for auctions
     and using proxies is the best century tested solution).

What I observe is that practically all the "democracy" we want
to impose on the net is inadequate and that we have to forge
"net-democracy" rules/usages. The first difference is the time
lost in using "electronic aids" and the degradation of the quality
of the exchange because decision making processes are used
by many as training processes.

The result is that real decisions cannot be taken elsewhere
than in "secret" committees. Usually the kindergarten is not
the place where you manage a School.

We should accept that net-democracy calls for representatives.
We have the entire world: 350.000.000 of users and we want
every of them to be a Congressman. We have first to find
mechanism to select/elect reps. Traveling costs is a way to
make sure that the person thought he was competent or
motivated enough for the cost of the travel to be worth, or
that his peers thought it was worth to spend the money of
the company for him. It is certainly not the best, nor the only
way. But until now it works.

This is why I would advocate solution where we *add* a new
concpet, test and valiate it, rather than any *replacing* solutions.

Jefsey

On 10:09 18/02/01, Jeff Williams said:
>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

- --
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 07:19:07 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Admin] Info on "Bob Davis" (Re: [ga] remote participation)

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 04:52 18/02/2001 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Harald and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   How does somebody half way across the Globe PROVE he is not
> >somebody else?  I sure don't know how that can be done.  Do you?
>
> Having a single person who is not himself suspected of being a Jeff
> Williams clone claim to have met both "Bob Davis" and "Jeff Williams" would
> surely be an indication. Other examples are in the list moderation rules.
>
> I will not comment further on this matter on the list.

  Yes.  Harald posted this to me privately earlier.  Thank you
harald for posting it to the GA List publicly as well.   Here
was my response in it's entirety:

Harald, I have never met you or Roberto.  I don't know anyone that has.
So does that mean that you don't exist?  Of course not.  I have of course
met Bob.  So has James Touton and Brian Hollingsworth.  I believe
that you have spoken with Bob on the phone, isn't that right?  Bob Davis
is also a stakeholder as is Brian Hollingsworth.  Bob and Brian are also
ICANN @large members.   Bob, James and Brian are tax payers in the
US.  As ICANN is a US corporation and the DNSO is an SO of ICANN
it is bound by US law.  In the US, your identify is established at birth
legally speaking.  So how do these documented facts jive with your
contention, Harald?  How do the DNSO rules disagree with these facts
for that matter Harald?  Or is the DNSO above US law?  Please advise
on that if you would.

>
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: [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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 11:30:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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 

Good question.  Given that this is a global internet body, one might well
ask.

> may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but 
> I take it that face-to-face communication generally still 
> gets more work done. 
> 

It may make sense for the BOARD to be f2f, but that doesn't mean that rich
supplicants should have an edge over less wealthy ones.

> The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise 
> ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person 

I respectfully disagree.  An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
- -- have a huge edge.

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's cool here.<--

- --
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 14:36:24 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Whois database

News story on NSI selling the whois database information:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/531732.asp?0nm=-1AP&cp1=1

Best read, I think, in conjunction with Auerbach's rant on
the whois database, ponit three under "What I would say to
the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" on
the menu page at:

http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/index.htm

I'd say one of the more useful things ICANN could do to
improve the net would be to make it clear to the contractors
that treating the data they manage for the net as proprietary
(let alone selling it!) is completely unnacceptable.

While they're at it, ask them to fix whois which has, in my
view, been broken since shortly after NSI started running it.

Even if a single central whois covering the whole net is no
longer practical, we want one broken down by TLD so things
can be found easily, not by registry. That is certainly
administratively convenient for the contractors, but not
remarkably useful to users.

To my mind, questions of getting the existing system to do
things right (fixing whois, getting rid of board squatters,
censuring stupid decisions like bodacioustats.com, getting
ready for DNSsec deployment) are as interesting as questions
of fixing the system itself (adding constituencies, etc) and
far more likely to produce useful results soon.

I'm emphatically not saying we should give up trying to change
the system, but it may be more productive to focus on specific
problems like this NSI action or the absurd tatas decision.
- --
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 14:51:42 -0500
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> Good question.  Given that this is a global internet body, one might well
> ask.

Some discussions, though, work better face to face. Not necessarily at
ICANN meetings. I met e few of the players here at last year's CFP. No
doubt some ICANN-related discussions go on at IETF meetings, the "bakeoffs"
various vendors of net products hold to test their implementations,
academic or commercial meetings, ...

I don't think we should block any such discussions, or cripple them by
making them work exactly like online discussions.

> > may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but
> > I take it that face-to-face communication generally still
> > gets more work done.
> >
> 
> It may make sense for the BOARD to be f2f, but that doesn't mean that rich
> supplicants should have an edge over less wealthy ones.

I think we ensure that by making it clear that decisions are made on the
list. An ICANN-sponsored face=to-face session has no more authority than
a meeting of a group of our players at an IETF meeting or CFP or .. would.

The list provides the agenda for face-to-face sessions, receives the
feedback and makes the decisions.
 
> > The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise
> > ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person

Yes, that's a problem.
 
> I respectfully disagree.  An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
> players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
> -- have a huge edge.

Methinks that edge disappears with my proposal. Good riddance.
- --
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 12:35:07 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 08:30 AM 2/18/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>It may make sense for the BOARD to be f2f, but that doesn't mean that rich
>supplicants should have an edge over less wealthy ones.
>
> > The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise
> > ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person
>
>I respectfully disagree.  An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
>players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
>-- have a huge edge.

One wonders about the base of experience that Prof. Froomkin is using for 
making these strong assessments and recommendations.

There are many, excellent theories about the ways that groups should be 
organized and operate.  The only problem is that many of these theories are 
not practical.

There is extensive experience, in a few forums, with doing online 
process.  Essentially all of them rely on periodic, face-to-face meetings 
for "efficient" consideration and resolution of difficult issues.

Such meetings are not subject to the sort of artificial crippling that 
Professor Froomkin is idealizing.

So, Prof. F., where have you seen your model work?

d/

ps.  If anyone else reading this list is similarly concerned about the 
practicality of the professor's suggestions, they might want to forward my 
note to him.  Prof. F. views participation in open processes as requiring 
that he filter out postings that he finds distasteful.

- --
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 12:38:44 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 11:51 AM 2/18/2001, Sandy Harris wrote:
>I think we ensure that by making it clear that decisions are made on the
>list. An ICANN-sponsored face=to-face session has no more authority than
>a meeting of a group of our players at an IETF meeting or CFP or .. would.
>
>The list provides the agenda for face-to-face sessions, receives the
>feedback and makes the decisions.

This is exactly the IETF model.  It has worked well for 12 years, and 
through massive increases in participation.

d/

ps.  Anyone inclined to dismiss the IETF experience, on the basis that 
engineering group processes are unrelated to the sort of work ICANN must 
do, needs to gain some experience with the personalities and dynamics of 
the IETF...

- --
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 16:15:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 11:51 AM 2/18/2001, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >I think we ensure that by making it clear that decisions are made on the
> >list. An ICANN-sponsored face=to-face session has no more authority than
> >a meeting of a group of our players at an IETF meeting or CFP or .. would.
> >
> >The list provides the agenda for face-to-face sessions, receives the
> >feedback and makes the decisions.
>
> This is exactly the IETF model.  It has worked well for 12 years, and
> through massive increases in participation.

  Yes, but as we have seen over the past 2 years the IETF model is breaking
down and in some specific situations has broken down.  Changed is both
needed and underway.

>
>
> d/
>
> ps.  Anyone inclined to dismiss the IETF experience, on the basis that
> engineering group processes are unrelated to the sort of work ICANN must
> do, needs to gain some experience with the personalities and dynamics of
> the IETF...
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
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 23:17:56 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 12:35 18/02/2001 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>There is extensive experience, in a few forums, with doing online 
>process.  Essentially all of them rely on periodic, face-to-face meetings 
>for "efficient" consideration and resolution of difficult issues.
>
>Such meetings are not subject to the sort of artificial crippling that 
>Professor Froomkin is idealizing.

for the kind of dynamic, in-room discussion that went on at the GA meeting 
in Marina Del Rey, I think the "crippling" effect would probably be seen. 
(My interpretation, of course....)
For the kind of line-up-and-ask-your-question that we saw during the open 
Board question session, I don't think the difference would be all that big.

Your mileage may vary.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #245
************************