Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #246
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 246

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:40:51 +0000
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Dear Michael,

On 16:30 18/02/01, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law said:
>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.

This is true. But you will not prevent f2f meetings to occurr everywhere,
at some other occasions, and mostly in the USA. So at least the
ICANN meetings are in the open. What I object is the 3 months delay.
Too short. Twice a year together with an Internet show would be better
and give more reasons to spend traveling money.

Obviously another solution is to rebuild the iCANN as it should be, ie
the association of the TLDs incorporated in Tuvalu with no more than
two people in the BoD from the same country with 9 Directors from
netwide support interests (SO) and 9 directors from stakeholders
(@large: 5 from the field, 4 from specialized industry/concerns). Final
decision by the GA, ie every TLDs (g/cc/alt). Willing or not IMHO this
is what will happen anyway. In one year or in ten years, in war or in
peace, this is the only question.

By then there will be probably no more floor, only qulified world. So
your solution will prevail. Today I feel it a little premature if exclusive.
All the best.

Jefsey

- --
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 15:58:11 -0800
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Jeff Williams writes:
 > Dave Crocker wrote:
 > > 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.

The only breakdown that has occurred is the presence of people who have
no stake, either personally or professionally in seeing the process
work.  I refer to the well-known personas who inhabit this list and who
do nothing EXCEPT try to impede progress.  If you are a true
stakeholder, then you have nothing to fear from either a face-to-face
meeting OR from list participation.  If, on the other hand, you simply
wish to inflate your own lack of experience or overabundance of ego, you
can do as those on this list who prefer to beat a subject to death with
inane and off-topic responses, simply to see their own (made-up?) name
on a world-wide mailing list.

Face-to-face meetings are a *requirement* of the IETF model, just as
*civil* behavior on the mailing list is also a requirement.  Some
members of this list do not seem to grasp either concept.

/Joe
- --
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 19:06:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Joe and all remaining assembly members,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes:
>  > Dave Crocker wrote:
>  > > 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.
>
> The only breakdown that has occurred is the presence of people who have
> no stake, either personally or professionally in seeing the process
> work.  I refer to the well-known personas who inhabit this list and who
> do nothing EXCEPT try to impede progress.  If you are a true
> stakeholder, then you have nothing to fear from either a face-to-face
> meeting OR from list participation.  If, on the other hand, you simply
> wish to inflate your own lack of experience or overabundance of ego, you
> can do as those on this list who prefer to beat a subject to death with
> inane and off-topic responses, simply to see their own (made-up?) name
> on a world-wide mailing list.

  I am sorry to see that you take this view.  I certainly don't, and never have.
But I can understand that perception, however inaccurate it may be, is
90% or reality.  But the remaining 10 % is where the rubber meets the road,
as the say!  >;)

>
>
> Face-to-face meetings are a *requirement* of the IETF model, just as
> *civil* behavior on the mailing list is also a requirement.  Some
> members of this list do not seem to grasp either concept.

  Indeed some people seem to have a distinct problem with
civi discourse.  Your above comments towards myself and our members
are a good example of that, unfortunately.

>
>
> /Joe

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 17:23:17 -0800
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Jeff Williams writes:
 > > Face-to-face meetings are a *requirement* of the IETF model, just as
 > > *civil* behavior on the mailing list is also a requirement.  Some
 > > members of this list do not seem to grasp either concept.
 > 
 >   Indeed some people seem to have a distinct problem with
 > civi discourse.  Your above comments towards myself and our members
 > are a good example of that, unfortunately.

The rules of civil discourse on mailing lists require that you remove
unnecessary quoted material, only leaving enough material to provide
adequate context.  You behavior has shown a distinct inability to follow
even thses simple rules.  Also, your comment has no relation to my
comment, as I never once mentioned either your name or your so-called
organization's name.

No further comments from me on this subject.

/Joe
- --
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 19:56:19 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Joe, Harald and all remaining assembly members,

  The civil rules of discourse for this forum require that action be taken
with respect to Joe Kelsey's comments below as they are a general
attack on person or persons that are stakeholders.  Please consider this
a formal complaint.  Thank you.

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes:
>  > Dave Crocker wrote:
>  > > 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.
>
> The only breakdown that has occurred is the presence of people who have
> no stake, either personally or professionally in seeing the process
> work.  I refer to the well-known personas who inhabit this list and who
> do nothing EXCEPT try to impede progress.  If you are a true
> stakeholder, then you have nothing to fear from either a face-to-face
> meeting OR from list participation.  If, on the other hand, you simply
> wish to inflate your own lack of experience or overabundance of ego, you
> can do as those on this list who prefer to beat a subject to death with
> inane and off-topic responses, simply to see their own (made-up?) name
> on a world-wide mailing list.
>
> Face-to-face meetings are a *requirement* of the IETF model, just as
> *civil* behavior on the mailing list is also a requirement.  Some
> members of this list do not seem to grasp either concept.
>
> /Joe

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 21:07:20 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 10:11 PM 2/17/2001 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>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.

         Here's an example, though, of what Patrick's talking about:  At 
the Cairo ICANN meeting, I chaired a meeting of the working group on new 
TLDs.  About 65 people attended, many (most?) of whom weren't members of 
the working group, but all of whom were interested in contributing to the 
discussion on new TLDs.  Here's a complete list of the folks who made oral 
questions or comments (per http://www.mama-tech.com/wgc/, with then-current 
affiliations):  me, Philip Sheppard (NC), Marilyn Cade (AT&T), Jim Baskin 
(Bell Atlantic), Jamie Love (CPT), Harold Feld (DNRC), Shonna Keogan 
(Register.com), John Lewis (British Telecom), Paul Kane (NC), Martin 
Schwimmer (IP lawyer), Kathy Kleiman (NCDNH), Eric Menge (US SBA), John 
Lewis (British Telecom), Caroline Chicoine (NC), Raul Echeberria (NC), Paul 
Stahura (registrar).  Each and every one of the speakers, with the 
exceptions of Sheppard and Echeberria, was from the United States or 
England.  I remember noting with some rue that ICANN had carefully 
scheduled a meeting in Cairo, Egypt so that the same US/British players 
could fly over there and chat --

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 23:23:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

I would be perfectly happy to limit the experiment to interactions with
the Board.  

I quite agree that that filering live comment via remote procedures like
those currently in use by ICANN threatens to limit the value of live
participation -- the idea is to encourage an increase of the quality by
aligning the interests of the rich and well-resourced with the rest of us.

[cc's trimmed]

[P.S. I should perhaps note that I long ago killfiled Dave Cr*cker so that
I never see messages from him, and only see message to, or cc him when
they are by someone, like Harald, in my "read everything" file.  Life is
short.]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> 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]
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 23:26:19 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

I wonder if I've hit a nerve?

1) Persons whose company attends every meeting, have an interest in
maintaining the in-person advantage.

2) Local attendees will still benefit from constituency meetings, hallways
and all the other good things - they will not lose anything to which they
are actually entitled.  Indeed, they will still have a full opportunity to
participate via a handy terminal.

3) A system that levels the playing field will actually produce a radical
increase in participation since outsiders will have an equal shot with
insiders.

4) Most importantly, a level playing field will remove the enormous repeat
player advantage that those with expense accounts have in the current
system.

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.  
> 
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		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 20:25:31 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 06:07 PM 2/18/2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         Here's an example, though, of what Patrick's talking about:  At the

As any long-time observer has noted, this entire topic has not attracted 
wide-spread interest, in spite of extensive press coverage.  So it is not 
surprising the the bulk of the participants are from a financially 
motivated core.

That said, my previous note did not try to claim that local participation 
outweighed the well- and self-financed distant travelers.

We need to remember that not all those distant travelers are funded by 
others or are lobbyists.

We also need to remember that local cultures vary and few places produce 
aggressive, outspoken participants to compare with the U.S. (and one or two 
other countries.)  The less aggressive participants are still valuable to 
the process.

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 22:06:47 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

At 08:26 PM 2/18/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I wonder if I've hit a nerve?

Indeed you have.  The funny bone.

You seem to be ignoring that a number of people have expressed concern 
about the impracticality of your suggestion.

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: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:27:55 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

Michael and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems obvious to me at least that you indeed did hit a nerve here,
Michael.

  We agree that leveling the playing field in your original suggestion
of this thread will likely increase over a short period of time, participants
in this ongoing process.  We believe that this is a positive thing.  It
also appears that those that wish to maintain a special advantage,
find your suggestion, threatening.  That is unfortunate and possibly damaging
to all stakeholders on the whole.

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I wonder if I've hit a nerve?
>
> 1) Persons whose company attends every meeting, have an interest in
> maintaining the in-person advantage.
>
> 2) Local attendees will still benefit from constituency meetings, hallways
> and all the other good things - they will not lose anything to which they
> are actually entitled.  Indeed, they will still have a full opportunity to
> participate via a handy terminal.
>
> 3) A system that levels the playing field will actually produce a radical
> increase in participation since outsiders will have an equal shot with
> insiders.
>
> 4) Most importantly, a level playing field will remove the enormous repeat
> player advantage that those with expense accounts have in the current
> system.
>
> 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.
> >
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 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

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: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:11:29 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Professor Froomkin's 2/16 comments ("everyone, including the people
physically present, should have to submit comments via the 'remote' system")
got the Berkman Center remote participation team thinking again about ideal
methods of recognizing remote participants.

In principle, we are (and always have been) in agreement with Froomkin's
call for consistency between in-person and remote comments -- and we'd like
to think the existing remote participation at least makes reasonable efforts
on this front.  (For example, just as each in-person participant is asked to
limit herself to one comment per agenda item, so too do we ask the same of
online participants.)

Our sense is that there's more than one way to achieve such consistency.
Froomkin suggested one approach -- but we certainly don't think it's the
only possibility.  Instead, we'd suggest an increasing reliance on
first-come-first-served among remote participants' comments.  When coupled
with the one-comment-per-topic-per-participant rule (and our underlying
fraud detection systems), we think we can most likely implement this rule
without too seriously skewing incentives.  (In principle, we'd be worried
that first-come-first-served would encourage participants to compete in
submitting their comments as early as possible.)  Of course,
first-come-first-served has its necessary limits: We'll continue to screen
for non-substantive submissions as well as for submissions not related to
the current topic of the meeting; these comments will be included in the web
archive but, we think, should not be considered for presentation to the
assembled group.  Furthermore, if the chair should at some point call for
questions or comments on a particular limited subject, we'd favor remote
submissions on that topic, just as folks queued at a microphone would yield
to someone intending to speak in person on the specified subject.

Again, I'm interested to hear what folks on the list thing of this
alternative approach.

(The more we thought about voting, as contemplated by my last post with this
same subject line, the more concerned we became that, whatever the merits of
voting, it just didn't map to a practice used in the in-person meeting.  So,
despite its initial, we ultimately came to think that voting just wasn't
appropriate in this context.)

Finally, it's been suggested that some participants (for example, non-native
speakers) might prefer to ask questions in writing (via a computer terminal)
rather than at a microphone.  This is a very reasonable suggestion --
indeed, one first (to my knowledge) made by Professor Zittrain at the ICANN
meeting in Singapore in March 1999, where he asked me to provide a computer
terminal for that purpose.  We continued to do so in Berlin (see picture at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/mmarchive/ICANN_Berlin/Meeting/
Comments%2Ejpg>) and have done so sporadically since then; interest seemed
to be relatively low, and so we didn't make this a priority.  However, in
MdR in Nov 2000, we did have three such terminals in place -- one in each of
the two overflow rooms in the hotel basement (overflow rooms not heavily
used, however), and one on the far side of the front of the room (near the
audience microphone) that was unfortunately generally taken over by folks
checking their email, etc.  I've made a note to do better in Melbourne -- to
see to it that the terminal remains dedicated to this purpose, and that it's
well-publicized on the projection screen between meetings.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #246
************************