Ben Edelman wrote:
> > I felt frustrated at never hearing our comments mentioned
> > except as something that would be read aloud at some future
> > point. But the point never came, the momentum in the room
> > being too robust, (to be kind, out of sight, out mind), and we
> > mostly were left out.
>
> I share your frustration, Ken -- after getting so many serious, substantive,
> on-topic comments, it seemed tragic not to be able to respond to each in
> turn. Ideally there would be no time constraints in the ICANN Open
> Meetings, but, even so, the discussion around the remote comments that were
> recognized was so time-effective as to make recognition of additional
> comments pretty attractive, I would think. ...
>
> We -- Wendy, Jonathan, and I -- have spent some time thinking about how
> these meetings could be made more inclusive, particularly with the help of
> the 'net to bring in those who can't attend. Using a second screen was an
> idea that came out of the November meeting, and indeed we had a secondary
> display both in Singapore in March and at Berlin's meetings. That said, the
> mere presence of a second screen doesn't solve all problems. In particular,
> we're concerned that it's too distracting to display remote comments
> (potentially pretty serious thought-provoking messages) while someone is
> talking, whether giving a presentation or asking or responding to a
> question...
>
> I'm coming to think that recognizing large volumes of remote
> comments is actually a somewhat tricky problem. ... But I remain
> interested in other approaches to the problem. Suggestions?
>
This is hilarious! It reminds me of the cartoon someone described
recently, in which Hagar is nailing up a bridge over a crevasse -
from one abutment. I can imagine him saying, "I'm coming to think
that global connectivity is actually a somewhat tricky problem."
Why not give up your gravity-defying act of nailing together live
conferences, and accept that online, continuous, real-time
comments and responses are the *basis* of your operations, and
the *problem* is fitting 50 or a hundred local, f2f comments into
that frame - instead of the other way around? (Of course, you'd
have to come up with a catchy name for such a radical inversion of
convention: how about "Internet"?)
Now, if you're about to reply,
> Agreed in principle, but can you be more specific?
my concrete suggestion is that the Santiago conference consist
entirely of networked computers. The Board and the SO reps and
the lobbyists and all can stay home, and take the opportunity to
read the mail -- yes, and respond (confer) -- for a change. ICANN
might then stand a chance of getting to the other foot(ing) before
the entire cobbled-together contraption tragically collapses.
kerry
