Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #249
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 22 2001         Volume 01 : Number 249

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:11:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
> >
> >Obviously, you have made enormous personal contributions in the past, which
> >I do not seek to diminish in any way, but the time has to come to consider
> >whether or not another approach would be more appropriate for the future
> >needs of the ICW. If you really cannot come up with practical ways in which
> >to resolve some of these problems, or support others who do, then either
> >another body should be brought in to oversee remote participation, or there
> >should not be any physical in-person meetings at all until these issues are
> >resolved, or possibly both.
> >
>
> The ICANN Board will meet anyhow, with or without public forum.
> Your suggestion to eliminate the physical meetings (with limited, but still
> important possibility of remote participation) will only lead to the
> situation in which ICANN will meet behind closed doors.

  I, for one am sure you are quite right here in your conclusion.  And
I say, so be it.  If the ICANN BoD is so inane to do so, than they
would only demonstrate clearly that they have no intent of honoring
their own agreements, (White Paper and MoU).

>
>
> By the way, has any proposal of this kind be made for any other physical
> meeting like public congressional hearings? Should they also be banned until
> we don't find a way to ensure remote participation at the same level than
> physical attendance?

  I agree.  And I believe this is being worked on.

>
>
> I think that Prof. Froomkin proposal has some merit, and that we should
> think a way to improve remote participation, but that going to the extreme
> of refusing the "good" until we don't have the "better" is suicide.

You have your opinion, Roberto.  And it has some merit itself.  But
only some....  What is required here is will, and that's about it...
As one of our great patriots once shouted at the top of his lungs,
"Give me liberty or give me death".... Patrick Henry.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:18:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Kendall and all remaining assembly members,

  I don't think this is true or maybe I don't want to.  But all to often
your contention below seems to have a grain of truth in it....

Kendall Dawson wrote:

> Unfortunately, this is modus operandi of the NC and the Board too.
> Individuals who don't have a lot of money but are concerned about the
> issues are
> just out of luck. We can rant all we want on mailing lists - just don't
> rock the boat.
>
> kd
>
> At 12:58 PM 2/20/2001 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
> >The GA has felt OK about conducting occasional "votes,"
> >appropriately discounting their ultimate significance, of course.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:14:06 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

At 23:39 20/02/2001 -0500, Ben Edelman wrote:
> > 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.
>
>These are indeed serious concerns, and while my team thought about many of
>these issues before suggesting the f-c-f-s approach, I agree that our
>proposal fails to address the entirety of the potential problem here.

suggestion - have no idea how reasonable it is:
allow each poster of comments to the online system to view the queue of
comments, and to withdraw his question from the queue if he wants to.

This maps to the physical operation of leaving the mike queue.

This of course requires that comments be tagged with the commenter's
online identity in a reasonably secure way - for many technologies this
is easy.

For even more complexity, allow a person to update his comment while it
is in the queue; this too maps to a physical operation.

But I don't think it is reasonable to see this implemented for Melbourne...

- --
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:50:50 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Joanna,

>
><The ICANN Board will meet anyhow, with or without public forum.
>Your suggestion to eliminate the physical meetings (with limited, but still
>important possibility of remote participation) will only lead to the
>situation in which ICANN will meet behind closed doors.>
>
>- Let them. It would be seriously underestimating the intelligence of the
>BoD to think they don't fully appreciate the ramifications of such a step.
>

I'm sure they do.
I'm not equally sure that *we* do.

><By the way, has any proposal of this kind be made for any other physical
>meeting like public congressional hearings? Should they also be banned 
>until
>we don't find a way to ensure remote participation at the same level than
>physical attendance?>
>
>- What relevance do hearings held by democratically elected officials have
>to do with ICANN in its present form?
>

I thought that the principle of remote participation should apply there as 
well.
Why not, BTW?

><I think that Prof. Froomkin proposal has some merit, and that we should
>think a way to improve remote participation, but that going to the extreme
>of refusing the "good" until we don't have the "better" is suicide.>
>
>I'm pleased to note that you support Prof. Froomkin's proposal that all
>questions are submitted online, including those by attendees, as do I.
>But I can't agree that to cancel physical in-person meetings unless remote
>participation is resolved, would be suicide, which I submit you have
>supported yourself by your own proposal to cancel one of the quarterly
>meetings and replace it with online only participation.

I just sait "it has some merit".
I support the effort to find better participation from people remotely.
I support, for instance, the effort of Ben & Berkman center.

But I think that we have to replace procedures that have some problem by 
procedures that have lesser, not bigger problems. Not to even mention the 
solution "no procedure" ;>).
In this sense, I believe that to propose an experiment for one of the 
meetings and let the other ones run as they are is something that can be 
accepted easier, and can have some value in evaluation further actions.
BTW, it does not have necessarily to "replace" a physical meeting, it can be 
just added. If the BoD meets telephonically in the months when there's no 
physical meeting, I can't see why we cannot add some online chat feature: 
for instance, Webcast the phone conversation (audio only, obviously), and 
allow comments.

A step forward, not an all-or-nothing solution.

>
>It's not rocket science to see where all this is leading. There really is 
>no
>need to rush around the world anymore. It's not even the money. It's the
>time. Why should anybody give up work and family for 3 days, when 3 hours
>will do the job? Actually, I thought canceling all 4 meetings and replacing
>them with remote participation was a more brilliant idea. Let the BoD meet
>in-person, but why anybody else?
>
>But that's just me.
>
>Regards
>Joanna

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:26:28 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Melbourne Workshop on the Public Voice in ICANN

"It's really a question of resources and connectivity."

Let's assume unlimited resources and unlimited connectivity.
Now, we have a Board meeting underway with (choose
a number) participants.  [Of course, the complexity grows
geometrically with increasing numbers.]

This is doable, and ICANN won't make it unless we solve
this problem.  But I would suggest that parliamentary procedure
will trump connectivity as the "real" question.

In the well of the House of Representatives,
you can have hundreds of Congresshumans wishing to be recognized --
and the Speaker gets to choose who gets the dais.

In this little hothouse, we shouldn't even hope that those that
_don't_ get recognized are going to behave with civility.

But here, unlike Congress, it _is_ possible for everyone who has
something to contribute to have it recorded contemporaneously
in a live on-line journal of proceedings.  [ Congresshumans only get
to doctor the Congressional record after the fact. ;)]

But the potential cacaphony is a daunting thing.

Still, I agree with Froomkin that we should give it a whirl.

Michael McNulty

Rob Courtney wrote:

> 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

- --
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: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:44:56 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Selecting Comments to Read Aloud

Roberto and all remaining members,

It has often been said that those who can afford to spend time here do not
represent internet stakeholders, because if they did, their time would be
spent elsewhere....catch 22.  Well, guess what, I'm now too busy to give
time to this and therefore, I hope that by virtue of my future absence, my
past contributions will now count.

Regarding my proposals to date, I can assure you these have been submitted
with the best of intentions, with no hidden agenda, save to preserve the
rights of the individual domain name holder to have a say in how the
internet is run. I like to think that if something, anything, that I have
said here rings true for you, and as a direct result, is taken forward and
enacted, my time will have been well spent.

Please forgive me. I have a big business deal (for me) going through next
week and must defer meaningful participation until after March 6th. However
I can assure you that I will keep up to date with developments by reading
all posts as they come through.

In short, I am not abandoning my post, just taking leave, as one does from
time to time as necessary.

Sincerely,
Joanna Lane

>
><The ICANN Board will meet anyhow, with or without public forum.
>Your suggestion to eliminate the physical meetings (with limited, but still
>important possibility of remote participation) will only lead to the
>situation in which ICANN will meet behind closed doors.>
>
>- Let them. It would be seriously underestimating the intelligence of the
>BoD to think they don't fully appreciate the ramifications of such a step.
>

I'm sure they do.
I'm not equally sure that *we* do.

><By the way, has any proposal of this kind be made for any other physical
>meeting like public congressional hearings? Should they also be banned
>until
>we don't find a way to ensure remote participation at the same level than
>physical attendance?>
>
>- What relevance do hearings held by democratically elected officials have
>to do with ICANN in its present form?
>

I thought that the principle of remote participation should apply there as
well.
Why not, BTW?

><I think that Prof. Froomkin proposal has some merit, and that we should
>think a way to improve remote participation, but that going to the extreme
>of refusing the "good" until we don't have the "better" is suicide.>
>
>I'm pleased to note that you support Prof. Froomkin's proposal that all
>questions are submitted online, including those by attendees, as do I.
>But I can't agree that to cancel physical in-person meetings unless remote
>participation is resolved, would be suicide, which I submit you have
>supported yourself by your own proposal to cancel one of the quarterly
>meetings and replace it with online only participation.

I just sait "it has some merit".
I support the effort to find better participation from people remotely.
I support, for instance, the effort of Ben & Berkman center.

But I think that we have to replace procedures that have some problem by
procedures that have lesser, not bigger problems. Not to even mention the
solution "no procedure" ;>).
In this sense, I believe that to propose an experiment for one of the
meetings and let the other ones run as they are is something that can be
accepted easier, and can have some value in evaluation further actions.
BTW, it does not have necessarily to "replace" a physical meeting, it can be
just added. If the BoD meets telephonically in the months when there's no
physical meeting, I can't see why we cannot add some online chat feature:
for instance, Webcast the phone conversation (audio only, obviously), and
allow comments.

A step forward, not an all-or-nothing solution.

>
>It's not rocket science to see where all this is leading. There really is
>no
>need to rush around the world anymore. It's not even the money. It's the
>time. Why should anybody give up work and family for 3 days, when 3 hours
>will do the job? Actually, I thought canceling all 4 meetings and replacing
>them with remote participation was a more brilliant idea. Let the BoD meet
>in-person, but why anybody else?
>
>But that's just me.
>
>Regards
>Joanna

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:15:15 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] remote participation

- --part1_cf.2af5b68.27c68703_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have to agree with Jon, some participation and some visibility are better 
than BoD's being able to operate even more on their own than they are already.

Phil King
Butte MT USA
The Richest Hill On Earth!

- --part1_cf.2af5b68.27c68703_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Franklin Gothic Book" LANG="0">I have to agree with Jon, some participation and some visibility are better 
<BR>than BoD's being able to operate even more on their own than they are already.
<BR>
<BR>Phil King
<BR>Butte MT USA
<BR>The Richest Hill On Earth!</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_cf.2af5b68.27c68703_boundary--
- --
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 #249
************************