> But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many > acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments? How to choose? One possibility is to time-shift part of the discussion. Take live the seven or eight comments on a topic that real time will allow (2/3 selected by moderator's discretion and 1/3 at random), but have the Board distribute responsibility among its members for reviewing the remainder and posting responses (within one week?) on the ICANN web site. (It would be easy work for the plane trip home. :-) -- Bret
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Planet Communications Computing Facility
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Gordon Cook
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICA... Dan Steinberg
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE:... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICA... Jeff Williams
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICA... Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE:... Planet Communications Computing Facility
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Ellen Rony
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICA... Kent Crispin
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santia... Bret A. Fausett
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Jeff Williams
- Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN... Ben Edelman
- Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-S... Jeff Williams
- Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-San... Ben Edelman
- Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ... Mark C. Langston
- Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN... BrandonButterworth
- Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN... Ben Edelman