>I was (too subtly?) hinting that they should write their messages out
>and be subject to the same word and
>interest-in-the-eye-of-the-filtering-authority limit. Only fair?
>
>PS. Is the time limit based on the equivalent of 250 words? Or is the
>250 words based on the time limit? Or neither?
>
Independent of Ben Edelman's message proposing a 250-word limit, I
suggested the same thing. That's about ten sentences, and it is probably
as much text as can be absorbed in such a setting. It probably translates
into 1+ minutes.
I am told tht at the Berlin meeting, the time limit for physical
presentations was so short that Milton Mueller didn't have the opportunity
to read the names of the 85 people who signed a petition urging ICANN to
defer any action on the WIPO proposal until the DNSO was fully constituted.
That petition still applies, as the Working Groups were formed before the
DNSO.
Petitions are a timesaver, because they allow people who share a point of
view to add their names, rather than repeating the message over and over
and over and over. As such, each one of those signatories deserved the 2
seconds it would have taken to read the name into the public record in
front of the ICANN board.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
