Greg, [ >>> Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by "digital meeting." >>> I was thinking that providing a variety of tools for conferencing >>> would allow for a diversity of participation means. ] > > Do you rate a diversity of means higher than a diversity of > > perspectives? > > No. I'm not sure what I wrote that would have prompted you to ask > this question. A hundred million people with email, so lets throttle the conference down to those with MMX, in order to get diversity??? Or will you volunteer your real-time transcription service for the ROW? [ >>> I think there is a preference among people to have face-to- >>> face, or at least telephone conferences because there are >>> some things that are not communicated very well in email ] > > There's a preference, true enough, for looking at means rather than > > goals. > > That is not what I meant and I have no idea where you are going with > this. The problem with email is*not that it is not telephony, or 2-way video. The problem is that as it is conventionally configured, it is infernally hard to stay on the subject! Is there a *technical problem in analysing a text stream? I dont see know of any; the field of lexicography is well established; tagging conventions exist to compare a post with its response and provide a pretty credible readout of relevance. Why not get them into MIME standards and see what happens? An occasional mailing list rejection slip might help keep folks' minds on what they are there for, and a coherent thread or two would certainly provide a persuasive role model for others who would be wondering what on earth such a thing could be -- like snow in the Outback. > > I agree that emotional involvement *may lead to frustration, but > > isnt it also what leads to taking another look at what one hoped to > > accomplish, or the process one is using? > > If they aren't too frustrated, perhaps. If the goal of IFWP was to make a perfect NewCo the first time, then it has every right to be frustrated. If its goal is to *learn to make a NewCo, why should it be? And since it's still here (altho I note the Berkman Center page has not been updated since November), it seems like we should continue to organize a framework of *coordinated *international *meetings on the topic. In the absence of any other forum, and in the light of the points above, 'where I am going with this' is (lo and behold!) right here: this very list is a meeting place, and it has an international subscription list -- the only thing is, its about as coordinated as the proverbial ball of string-that-is-too-short-to-use. Time and again, people say that sense needs to be made of this aspect or that -- multiple registrars, multiple TLD registries, multiple interpretations of trademark law, multiple identities. But 'making sense' means 'having a consistent point of view,' not arguing loud and perpetually long. Why shouldnt IFWPs mandate for a framework include the *conceptual framework? My goodness, we might then find participants actually treating it as a meeting -- or the agenda-building pre-meeting, or the how-to-build-an-agenda pre-pre-meeting -- instead of the cat's box! Am I going to lead the discussion? No I am not. Are the moderators to lead the discussion? No they are not. Nobody is going to "lead" the discussion, because that's the ICANN route which is falling on its (bottom-up!) face. If you 'organize' hierarchically, you get a hierarchy for your troubles. The alternative is *self-organizing discussion and participation, because that's the 'governance' we are looking for. If the moderators can't tell the difference between discussion and squabble, maybe we can write a program that can. If *that proves to be a governance model that can do everything the White Paper calls for, wouldnt it be nice to be able to point to IFWP as the place where we tested it out? kerry
