Ben Edelman wrote:
>
>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?
Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random. We
may not get the best articulated comments, but it would then be up to the
Internet community to complain to the poster if he or she squandered that
precious opportunity on an adhominem attack or one of those he-said,
no-he-said inane banters.
If you have a gatekeeper, anyone short of God, someone online will likely
complain about hidden bias in the selection of the comments. Why would JZ
or anyone want to be in the line of fire?
Is this a one-way forum (like the ICANN mailing list), where one speaker
after another comments and the ICANN board listens without engaging in
dialogue? If the BOD responds to individual commenters, then perhaps if
the remote participation is brisk, time can be set aside at the end and
devoted to discussing all the unread comments in a summary review. We're
looking here for the least imperfect mechanisms, recognizing that each has
its failings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
