Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #247
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, February 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 247

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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:25:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

This is a noble try, but I think it has flaws, some quite serious.  [Any
chance, by the way, of following up on the suggestion made earlier in one
of these threads that the place where change is most needed is comments to
the Board rather than the GA?  I think that commentator was right!]

First, it doesn't address the balance issue: what should the ratio of
online to offline speakers be.  Should the quotas be relative to numbers
present? Time?  I honestly don't know what the right answer is here -
which is one reason why I like putting everone into the same pot.

Second, first-come-first-serve has some trivialization dangers.  Imagine a
meeting in which the panel/board/whatever speak for 40 minutes than take
comments for 20.  Now imagine you are using two FCFS systems, one in which
people queue at a microphone, and another the online system you propose.  
The people who queue at the microphone can edit their remarks to focus on
the most important thing, and also not repeat something said after the
time they started to queue.  The people who submit an online query have it
preserved in amber. 

Third, it still doesn't align the incentives - what I really want is to
make the people in the room's interest the same as the people online,
rather than to make them adverse.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Ben Edelman wrote:

> 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.)

Speakers are not limited by time (much); offline comments are usually
limited by length.  Worse -- much, much worse -- they are frequently
edited by the person who reads them.  This is actually a quite separate
and serious problem, since substance is often lost in this process and the
readers' ideas of what matters are not always the same as the writers'.

> 
> Our sense is that there's more than one way to achieve such consistency.

I hope this is right.

> 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,

The problem is the 'comments in amber' problem.

> 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.)
> 
> 

Slashdot anyone?

> 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-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: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:36:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Ben and all remaining assembly members,

  Our members are pretty much dedicated to Michael's suggestion
"As is".

  I have suggested some specifics as to address Michaels suggestion
several times in the past, even for the very first ICANN Meeting in
Boston I believe.  Yet it seems that the than ICANN interim board, and
now the current ICANN Board were not adequately motivated in remote
participation or at least were not willing to avail themselves of the
technology that would provide for it as Michael has yet again suggested.
So again I will say the technology is there now to implement what
Michael Froomkin suggests.  Has been for two years as a matter of 
fact.  We use it in our meetings frequently.  I see no reason 
why ICANN cannot or should not.  Neither do our members by in large.

Ben Edelman wrote:

> 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

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 20:51:19 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Budget FY 2000-2001

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --Boundary_(ID_wIauMdDxp0KeP7dYW57I+w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

Preliminary Budget—Fiscal Year 2000-2001
(July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002)

http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm

/Bruce James
[email-masked]

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.231 / Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/2001

- --Boundary_(ID_wIauMdDxp0KeP7dYW57I+w)
Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>
<CENTER><B><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+2>Preliminary Budget=97Fiscal Year =

2000-2001<BR></FONT></B><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+1>(July 1, 2001 to =
June 30,=20
2002)<BR></FONT></CENTER></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm">h=
ttp://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm</A></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>/Bruce James<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>
<DIV><BR></FONT>&nbsp;<FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is =
certified Virus=20
Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: =
6.0.231 /=20
Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/2001</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- --Boundary_(ID_wIauMdDxp0KeP7dYW57I+w)--
- --
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 22:12:00 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FROM THE ICANN CONTROL TOWER.....

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C09AC0.FB2554E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

FROM THE ICANN CONTROL TOWER
'Okay everyone, there's a couple of .BIZ blips on the radar.
One @ 120 degrees and the other @ 300 degrees, both @ the
same altitude. Hmmm, we'll have to keep an eye on them.'
Great parody, read on.

      FROM THE ICANN CONTROL TOWER

Posted by "pilot6" on the ICANN public message boards, this is unerringly
accurate (sans the unfair knock - scout meeting? - on Karl Auerbach).
Director Cerf:  "Okay everyone, there's a couple of .BIZ blips on the radar.
One @ 120 degrees and the other @ 300 degrees, both @ the same altitude.
Hmmm, we'll have to keep an eye on them."

Director Touton:  "Two?  How did that happen?"

Director Pisanty:  "Yes, of course, this new improved radar system is
picking up signals from a different root.  It seems Leah Gallegos's .BIZ now
has a stronger signal.  How did that happen?"

Director Kraaijenbrink:  "It's not important how that happened, just shoot
the bitch down!"  She's a bandit!"

Director Fockler:  "Aw shutup Hans.  It's a big sky out there, she's
entitled to a piece of it."

Director Cerf:  "Well, it's an interesting situation.  But it's making me a
little nervous.  I mean, even though we didn't have the new improved radar,
we knew she was out there.  I hope they don't collide.  Oops, I almost
forgot, I have a magazine cover photo session to get to.  Lou (Touton), take
the control panel, will ya?"

Director Touton:  "Sure Vint!  No problem. I'll watch it for you (heh heh
heh).

Director Kraaijenbrink:  "Lou, you got the controls.  Hey, let's tell the
new .BIZ to ram Leah Gallegos, knocking her out of the sky. This will be
wild!  We know that small .BIZ won't stand a chance.  It'll be great
watching the collision ... real morbid curiousity value here.  I want that
in my basket ... heh heh heh."

Director Auerbach:  "Hey guys, you can't do that to Leah Gallegos and her
.BIZ.  That's a WOMAN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE).  The US Government tries
to protect WBE's.  Leah had the .BIZ idea first, and actually built it's
worth!  Oops, I gotta go now, I'm late for my scout meeting, after lunch of
course."

Director Touton:  "Aw jeezus, hasn't anyone done something about that pesky
At Large Membership yet?  Hey Karl (Auerbach), just shut the f--k up and
make another pot of coffee.  And while you're at it, the carpets in Andrew
McLauglin's office need cleaning.  Go rent a shampooer."

Transmission from Leah Gallegos's .BIZ:  "Senator Boxer, Senator Boxer, do
you read me?  Hello!  Hello!  I'm in big trouble hear ... getting blown out
of the sky by ICANN and ICANN cronies.  Senator Boxer, DO YOU READ ME?"

Reply from Senator Boxer:  (Cross-eyed and wet from flirtation with NSI
executive)
"Tee hee ... what's a TLD?  I barely know how to turn on my computer.
Now, what's a root?"

/Bruce James
[email-masked]

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.231 / Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/2001

- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C09AC0.FB2554E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D3>FROM =
THE ICANN=20
CONTROL TOWER <BR>'Okay everyone, there's a couple of .BIZ blips on the =
radar.=20
<BR>One @ 120 degrees and the other @ 300 degrees, both @ the <BR>same =
altitude.=20
Hmmm, we'll have to keep an eye on them.' <BR>Great parody, read=20
on.</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 =
size=3D2><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D5 width=3D"100%" bgColor=3D#c0c0c0 border=3D0>
  <TBODY>
  <TR>
    <TD>
      <CENTER><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D4>FROM THE ICANN =
CONTROL=20
      TOWER</FONT> </CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV><I><B>Posted by "pilot6" on the ICANN public message boards, this =
is=20
unerringly accurate (sans the unfair knock - scout meeting? - on Karl=20
Auerbach).</I></B> </DIV>
<P>Director Cerf:&nbsp; "Okay everyone, there's a couple of .BIZ blips =
on the=20
radar.&nbsp; One @ 120 degrees and the other @ 300 degrees, both @ the =
same=20
altitude.&nbsp; Hmmm, we'll have to keep an eye on them."=20
<P>Director Touton:&nbsp; "Two?&nbsp; How did that happen?"=20
<P>Director Pisanty:&nbsp; "Yes, of course, this new improved radar =
system is=20
picking up signals from a different root.&nbsp; It seems Leah Gallegos's =
.BIZ=20
now has a stronger signal.&nbsp; How did that happen?"=20
<P>Director Kraaijenbrink:&nbsp; "It's not important how that happened, =
just=20
shoot the bitch down!"&nbsp; She's a bandit!"=20
<P>Director Fockler:&nbsp; "Aw shutup Hans.&nbsp; It's a big sky out =
there,=20
she's entitled to a piece of it."=20
<P>Director Cerf:&nbsp; "Well, it's an interesting situation.&nbsp; But =
it's=20
making me a little nervous.&nbsp; I mean, even though we didn't have the =
new=20
improved radar, we knew she was out there.&nbsp; I hope they don't=20
collide.&nbsp; Oops, I almost forgot, I have a magazine cover photo =
session to=20
get to.&nbsp; Lou (Touton), take the control panel, will ya?"=20
<P>Director Touton:&nbsp; "Sure Vint!&nbsp; No problem. I'll watch it =
for you=20
(heh heh heh).&nbsp;=20
<P>Director Kraaijenbrink:&nbsp; "Lou, you got the controls.&nbsp; Hey, =
let's=20
tell the new .BIZ to ram Leah Gallegos, knocking her out of the sky. =
This will=20
be wild!&nbsp; We know that small .BIZ won't stand a chance.&nbsp; It'll =
be=20
great watching the collision ... real morbid curiousity value =
here.&nbsp; I want=20
that in my basket ... heh heh heh."=20
<P>Director Auerbach:&nbsp; "Hey guys, you can't do that to Leah =
Gallegos and=20
her .BIZ.&nbsp; That's a WOMAN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (WBE).&nbsp; The US =

Government tries to protect WBE's.&nbsp; Leah had the .BIZ idea first, =
and=20
actually built it's worth!&nbsp; Oops, I gotta go now, I'm late for my =
scout=20
meeting, after lunch of course."=20
<P>Director Touton:&nbsp; "Aw jeezus, hasn't anyone done something about =
that=20
pesky At Large Membership yet?&nbsp; Hey Karl (Auerbach), just shut the =
f--k up=20
and make another pot of coffee.&nbsp; And while you're at it, the =
carpets in=20
Andrew McLauglin's office need cleaning.&nbsp; Go rent a shampooer."=20
<P>Transmission from Leah Gallegos's .BIZ:&nbsp; "Senator Boxer, Senator =
Boxer,=20
do you read me?&nbsp; Hello!&nbsp; Hello!&nbsp; I'm in big trouble hear =
...=20
getting blown out of the sky by ICANN and ICANN cronies.&nbsp; Senator =
Boxer, DO=20
YOU READ ME?"=20
<P>Reply from Senator Boxer:&nbsp; (Cross-eyed and wet from flirtation =
with NSI=20
executive)<BR>"Tee hee ... what's a TLD?&nbsp; I barely know how to turn =
on my=20
computer.<BR>Now, what's a root?"=20
<P>&nbsp;</P></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2>/Bruce James<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 size=3D2><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is =
certified Virus=20
Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A=20
href=3D"http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: =
6.0.231 /=20
Virus Database: 112 - Release Date: 2/12/2001</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C09AC0.FB2554E0--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:23:37 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

(rest of nice note deleted)

At 19:11 19/02/2001 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
>(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.)

one note: this approach/format can work fairly well if the format is a set 
of presentations, each of which needs to gather some feedback.
it does not work at all if the purpose of the meeting is to get a discussion.

form follows function, as always...

- --
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:26:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Harald and all remaining assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> (rest of nice note deleted)
>
> At 19:11 19/02/2001 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
> >(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.)
>
> one note: this approach/format can work fairly well if the format is a set
> of presentations, each of which needs to gather some feedback.
> it does not work at all if the purpose of the meeting is to get a discussion.

  I would tend to agree.  And this is why this format or method is too
limited
to be very useful.  Discussion is necessary or at least desirable to a
great
extent so as to better develop ideas that can arrive at a comprehensive
and informed consensus decision on a topic or possible policy....

>
>
> form follows function, as always...
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:23:04 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Melbourne Workshop on the Public Voice in ICANN

Members of the GA:

As you may know, an international team of researchers known as the 
NAIS (NGO and Academic ICANN Study) project has been moving forward 
with an independent study of the nature of public participation in 
ICANN. That group (of which CDT is a member) will be holding a 
workshop in Melbourne to discuss these issues with the rest of the 
ICANN community. Tentative details are below, we hope to see you 
there!

r

* * *

Save This Date:  Fri. Mar. 9, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Melbourne time)

****************************************************************
THE PUBLIC VOICE IN ICANN &
THE FUTURE OF THE AT-LARGE COMMUNITY

Workshop hosted by NAIS: The NGO & Academic ICANN Study Group

**************************************************************

DATE:  Friday, March 9
TIME:  9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
PLACE:  Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Center

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

The workshop will include structured panel discussions about how to 
include the public interest in ICANN's decisions. Some questions to 
be explored at the session:

* What is the appropriate level of public participation in ICANN?

* What does participation by the broad community of Internet users 
contribute to ICANN's policy-making?

* How should the broad community of Internet users participate in 
ICANN (through what institutional procedures or mechanisms)?

Additional details will be distributed shortly

COME AND PARTICIPATE.

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

NAIS is an international team of experts from the non-profit and 
academic communities that is studying the nature of public 
representation in ICANN. An overview of the NAIS project is available 
at:
http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/nais/010207overview.shtml

For more information about NAIS, or about the workshop, please 
contact Rob Courtney of the Center for Democracy & Technology (+1 202 
637 9800, [email-masked]).
- -- 

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
[email-masked]
pgp id: 0xAD7123FB
http://www.cdt.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:49:04 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Ben Edelman wrote:-

(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.)

Does this little aside to your post amount to an unilateral decision to
sweep aside the voting rights of all remote participants, while preserving
these same rights for attendees? If so, whoever made the decision should be
fired.

Regards,
Joanna Lane

- --
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:58:13 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Joanna,

You may have misunderstood.  My last message was not about participation
generally; it was about selecting comments to be read out loud.  The current
question is the right way to select comments to be read out loud: When we
have more comments in the queue than we have time available, how do we
choose which to read?  There have been a number of method suggested --
recently, and over the years -- and certainly it's not the case that every
time we've discussed this, the favored resolution has been voting.  (Indeed,
I don't recall ever hearing discussion of that approach before last week.)

To respond to your general inquiry re the status of voting by online
participants: My understanding of votes of in-person meetings if that
they're all understood, by all participants (present and not), only to
reflect "the sense of the room."  They're one way of documenting a
particular kind of consensus, but they're not the only way of making such
documentation, nor is that the only kind of consensus.  Ultimately, as I
think about the ICANN process, it seems to me that it's at least intended to
reflect broad consensus across a variety of forums -- in-person public
meetings, online on lists and comment forums, etc.  Accordingly, while a
vote may be helpful in some circumstances, I don't think it's obviously the
best choice in all cases.

For whatever it's worth, to the best of my knowledge it has not yet been the
case in any ICANN meeting that online participants were able to "vote" when
an in-person show-of-hands was requested.  That's something the remote
participation team continues to find intriuging -- and something in
principle we'd like to implement if consistent with our resources and
expertise, which we think it fundamentally is.  But a number of factors,
most significantly the ~15-20 second lag of RealMedia streaming, seem to
stand pretty seriously in the way.  So as yet we haven't felt able to move
forward with this; nonetheless, with remote participants sending substantive
comments (and also engaging in offline asynchronous discussions), my sense
is that the GA has felt OK about conducting occasional "votes,"
appropriately discounting their ultimate significance, of course.

Ben Edelman

"Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]> wrote in message
news:<[email-masked]>...
> Ben Edelman wrote:-
>
> (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.)
>
> Does this little aside to your post amount to an unilateral decision to
> sweep aside the voting rights of all remote participants, while preserving
> these same rights for attendees? If so, whoever made the decision should
be
> fired.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna Lane
>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:59:22 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Melbourne Workshop on the Public Voice in ICANN

Rob Courtney wrote:-
Members of the GA:

As you may know, an international team of researchers known as the 
NAIS (NGO and Academic ICANN Study) project has been moving forward 
with an independent study of the nature of public participation in 
ICANN. That group (of which CDT is a member) will be holding a 
workshop in Melbourne to discuss these issues with the rest of the 
ICANN community. Tentative details are below, we hope to see you 
there!

- - Will there be remote participation available?
Thanks,
Joanna

* * *

Save This Date:  Fri. Mar. 9, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (Melbourne time)

****************************************************************
THE PUBLIC VOICE IN ICANN &
THE FUTURE OF THE AT-LARGE COMMUNITY

Workshop hosted by NAIS: The NGO & Academic ICANN Study Group

**************************************************************

DATE:  Friday, March 9
TIME:  9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
PLACE:  Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Center

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

The workshop will include structured panel discussions about how to 
include the public interest in ICANN's decisions. Some questions to 
be explored at the session:

* What is the appropriate level of public participation in ICANN?

* What does participation by the broad community of Internet users 
contribute to ICANN's policy-making?

* How should the broad community of Internet users participate in 
ICANN (through what institutional procedures or mechanisms)?

Additional details will be distributed shortly

COME AND PARTICIPATE.

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

NAIS is an international team of experts from the non-profit and 
academic communities that is studying the nature of public 
representation in ICANN. An overview of the NAIS project is available 
at:
http://www.cdt.org/dns/icann/nais/010207overview.shtml

For more information about NAIS, or about the workshop, please 
contact Rob Courtney of the Center for Democracy & Technology (+1 202 
637 9800, [email-masked]).
- -- 

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
[email-masked]
pgp id: 0xAD7123FB
http://www.cdt.org/

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:07:06 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Melbourne Workshop on the Public Voice in ICANN

At 12:59 PM -0500 2/20/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
>- Will there be remote participation available?
>Thanks,
>Joanna

This is something we're working on. We'd very much like to have some 
form of remote participation, but as we're on our own it's an open 
question. We are looking into remote participation, webcasting, and a 
realtime scribe but don't know yet which, if any, of these we'll be 
able to implement.

Discussions in this group have been very helpful in emphasizing the 
importance of remote participation, so this is a priority for us. 
It's really a question of resources and connectivity.

r
- --
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: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:23:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  I would have to say that from Ben's comments, you are correct, Joanna.
But than ICANN has never been very high on voting of any kind.  And I
agree with your remedy as well, as do most of our members.  This would
of course strongly apply to those "Boardsquatters" still remaining.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Ben Edelman wrote:-
>
> (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.)
>
> Does this little aside to your post amount to an unilateral decision to
> sweep aside the voting rights of all remote participants, while preserving
> these same rights for attendees? If so, whoever made the decision should be
> fired.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna Lane
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #247
************************