Greg,
>
> > What do you suppose it would take to manage a coordinated *online
> > meeting to discuss the transition; in other words, to take Dr Z's
> > suggestion seriously that ICANN is only one of many possible (serial
> > or parallel) experiments?
>
> I think it would take a lot of work. Certainly, the logistics of
> enabling participation by the Internet community at large need to be
> dealt with. People need to be able to participate using a variety of
> tools (usenet news, email, RealAudio, web browsers, telephone, video
> conference, MBone, etc.) There is the issue of publicizing the
> meetings so all interested parties know about them. Also, there is
> the issue of getting support and recognition for this movement.
Maybe (again) I have used the wrong word. What would it take to
loosen the concept of 'meeting' from the temporal constraints/
intensity/ concentration your response seems to imply? Does one
think differently when one is in a hurry? Is there a difference
between publicizing a meeeting and working out an agenda? Or
between a movement which needs support and a 'supporting cast'
which needs to move?
In other words, might there be 'digital' equivalents of the kind of
*structure* which (analog-based, imo) timing represents/ imposes?
(If that's too vague, take the converse: is the frustration and
aimlessness of IFWP due to its not working to a 'deadline' -- or to
its not having any other structure than the endless scroll?)
kerry
