The IRC server has suffered some minor difficulties in the last 24 hours --
nothing I couldn't resolve if I were at the server console in Cambridge...
but I'm not, and indeed the entire Berkman "primary technical staff" is
either here in Santiago or on vacation away from Cambridge. That said, I
Ben and all,
Shades of Singapore and Berlin all over again, eh Ben? When are you folks
going to learn that you need to do a dry run before one of these concerences??
Ben Edelman wrote:
The IRC server has suffered some minor difficulties in the last 24 hours --
nothing I couldn't resolve
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
The IRC server has suffered some minor difficulties in the last 24 hours --
nothing I couldn't resolve if I were at the server console in Cambridge...
but I'm not, and indeed the entire Berkman "primary tech
Ben -
I may need to take you up on that offer of the dial-in. I'm trying to
listen to the archive of the ccTLD meeting from yesterday, and getting
the same firewall issues I usually have (not available via http).
Of course, I'll only need the dial-in for certain if the other webcasts are
I may need to take you up on that offer of the dial-in. I'm trying to
listen to the archive of the ccTLD meeting from yesterday, and getting
the same firewall issues I usually have (not available via http).
Real can serve over http if configured
regards,
brandon
FYI, our firewall problems were solved by some last-minute reconfiguration I
managed to complete this afternoon. All known firewall users were able to
connect just fine this afternoon to the RealServer after these configuration
changes were completed, and if anyone else is having firewall
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
And herein lies the rub, and the disparity between on-line participants
and those physically present.
Those physically present can stand in line for a mike and say whatever it
is they wish to say. Those not physically present are *filtered* through
the staff.
I do
On 23 August 1999, "Ben Edelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the
assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote
comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens
in the front
Ben Edelman wrote:
* While remote comments may indeed be excerpted for oral presentation the
assembled group, realize that there's more to the presentation of remote
comments than the oral component. In particular, there are two big screens
in the front of the room on which comments will be
Mark asked:
(after I pointed out the value of having comments in writing)
Yes, but aren't these screens going to be positioned so that they are
facing the audience, and in effect, obscured from view by the BoD, or
whatever body is running the meeting? It's important to remember that
while
Ellen suggested:
Appropriate first tier filters would be:
a) deferring off-topic comments
b) acknowledgikng one comment per individual per topic
c) curtailing long responses beyond 250 words.
These are a good start. Indeed, they're filters we definitely need and
absolutely intend to put in
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
Monday, August 23, 1999, 3:37:19 PM, Ben Edelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben,
Any reason why the IRC server is down?
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association,
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
I would be very comfortable with Mr.
* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
subject, and he reads the ones that he thinks are most significant.
Bret and all,
Good idea Bret! If only the folks over there at ISI could learn
how to keep their e-mail archives and mailing lists up.. ;)
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
But the question in my mind remains: What do you do when there are too many
acceptable, on-topic, concise remote comments?
Ben and all,
No excuses here that are valid Ben. ICANN had plenty of time to
make necessary arrangements, and should have had an advance
team in SIngapore at least two weeks before that conference
and made adjustments in advance. They did not, hence they showed
their level of incompetence...
Gordon Cook wrote:
* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
Zittrain, for those of you wondering! -- reviews all the messages received
prior to the first time remote comments are recognized on a particular
subject, and he reads the ones that he thinks are
Gordon and all,
I must agree with Gordon here. J. zittran, played a crucial role
in conjunction with Mike Roberts, in sabotaging the IFWP, if memory
serves me correctly...
Gordon Cook wrote:
* Moderator's Choice. A Berkman staff person -- primarily Professor
Zittrain, for those of
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
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 06:09:20PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
Given the options (FIFO, random, gateway filter), I'd opt for random.
What procedure would you suggest for random selection? Dice? Why
wouldn't people complain just as much about loaded dice? Without
going to an awful lot of
Combo sounds good to me.
I will say that if someone has to be the moderator IMHO it would be hard
to pick someone better than Prof. Zittrain. But they won't always be that
good -- so adding in a little dash of randomness to season the sauce
sounds about right
I strongly agree that FIFO is
Gordon Cook wrote:
sorry I do not trust mr zittran adequately I know otheres who
don't as well and I hope they will speak out.
Any person or entity that would aid and abet a blatantly
undemocratic organization like ICANN, as the Berkman Center has
done, is unworthy of respect. The staff
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
The Berkman Center and all its officers and members have been, since
the inception of this process, a principle support for every unfair,
discriminatory, unprincipled, and destructive policy of ICANN. Any
organization that shows so little respect
Mark C. Langston [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
It's been mentioned several times now that there would be some form
of real-time chat available. However, there's no information on any
such setup on the Berkman Center's pages.
Should we just assume that comments will be dealt with in the same
I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and
"summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of
comments of less than a page. I submitted a short comment, only to have
it reduced to two sentences, losing one of my two points. And that was
the only
Michael Froomkin wrote:
I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and
"summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of
comments of less than a page.
We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
you and David Post happen
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
What we'll have in Santiago is a refined version of the comment-submission
system we provided in Singapore and Berlin. As
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago describes: "Online
participants will be able to submit text comments in real-time.
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
no comment can be longer than a length still to be decided but likely about
250 words. We don't intend to be mean about this -- but longer comments are
So long as the same
The Chair uses a timer for physical speakers.
dc
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
no comment can be longer than a length still to be decided but likely about
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
I do fear that the consequence is that you will have "questions" over
reasoned debate. As a result, measuring "consensus" coming out of such a
process becomes ever more problematicI'm not sure, though, I have a
better
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?
On
Michael Froomkin wrote:
I hope very much that the practice in Berlin of "editing" and
"summarizing" comments will be kept to a minimum, at least in the case of
comments of less than a page. I submitted a short comment, only to have
it reduced to two sentences, losing one of my two points. And
Ben Edelman wrote:
We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
you and David Post happen to submit comments that seem (to us!)
substantially the same or overlapping in part, it seems a good use of the
meeting's time for your agreement, along with any notable
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?
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
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
Ellen and all,
We [INEGroup] completely agree with Ellen's conclusion here
and have stated similar concerns to ICANN before on this
practice in remote participation.
Ellen Rony wrote:
Ben Edelman wrote:
We do think it will be helpful to group similar comments together. Should
you and
On 22 August 1999, Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, we should lighten up a bit. Rabid bean counting somewhat
defeats the pu rpose of having meetings in different regions of the
world. One of the primary values is to give folks outside the US a
little more bandwidth; to let someone
Mark C. Langston wrote:
On 22 August 1999, Diane Cabell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, we should lighten up a bit. Rabid bean counting somewhat
defeats the pu rpose of having meetings in different regions of the
world. One of the primary values is to give folks outside the US a
little
On 5 August 1999, "Ben Edelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate
remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org), which will
take place in
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society will webcast and facilitate
remote participation for the upcoming meetings of the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org), which will
take place in Santiago, Chile on August 24-26, 1999.
Options for online
41 matches
Mail list logo
