Greg,
> > Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to
> > loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/
> > intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply?
>
> I wasn't trying to imply anything.
Please don't take it as an insult ;-). In response to my suggestion
for a *digital meeting, your reply, involving publicity, funding,
providing RA relays (and presumably transcribers for the text-
bound?) etc seemed more relevant to an analog (f2f) kind -- but isnt
it just that kind of staging which *generates* the sense of urgency
that asynchronous communication has happily dispensed with?
> > Does one think differently when one is in a hurry?
>
> Yes, because they believe they have to act quickly to prevent
> something from happening or continuing to happen.
Surely, if there was some real-time event which needed to be either
executed or forfended, the existing structures could act as well as
an interim transition team? But my q was more general: the
difference between IRC and email conversations, for instance is
well known.
> > Is there a difference between publicizing a meeeting and working out
> > an agenda?
>
> Yes. Ideally, one would work out an agenda before publicizing
> meetings, so the meetings followed the agenda, and participants would
> have time to consider the issues beforehand.
In digital terms, however, how would one make this distinction of
before and after? -- even if it was felt to be necessary? Isnt it
conceivable that those who are 'working out' the agenda would be
identically the same as those who will 'consider the issues
beforehand'?
> Beyond what I said before (I think it is due to ICANN not living up to
> the requirements of the White Paper), I don't know. Anyone else want
> to comment?
Tell me again, please, why sponsoring "a framework of
coordinated international meetings, to ... discuss the transition"
should emotionally involve anyone in the success or failure of the
(a) transitional *product of those meetings?
kerry
