Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 respec

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 staf

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 troub

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

Dan and all, I think your comments should be relevant! >;) But as I stated earlier on post on this thread, I must agree with Gordon. Having J. zittran as a moderator is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house! I respect his ability, but do not trust his motives... Dan Steinberg wrot

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 thos

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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...

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

> > >* 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. >"Signi

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 M

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

> 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 moder

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 > whi

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 f

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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.

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 so

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 a

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 i

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

>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?

RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 dif

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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. A

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 > bett

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 > describes: "Online > participants will be able to submit text comments in real-tim

RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 e-mailed

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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 th

Re: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation

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, ), which will >take place