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 more bandwidth; to let someone else have th e kind of
> >face/voice time that Americans have had for quite a while now.
> >Making ever yone play by the same Word Meter seems to me to be
> >counterproductive to that effort , especially for those who've made
> >the effort to travel to Santiago.
>
> But Diane, this isn't what the physical meetings do. All they do is
> ensure that those with the money (i.e., those with corporate backing)
> get to have meetings without all the annoyance of those who participate
> online, and there will be a smallish contingent of people from whichever
> host country is chosen. That's it. There may be a few people who can
> afford to pay out of their own pocket to show up, or those who can manage
> to get their Constituencies to chip in and put them there, but the
> single overriding factor will be: Who's got the deepest pockets, who's
> got the corporate backing?
I don't think that is "all" they do; I believe you're overstating the case
somewhat, although you've certainly pointed out a serious disadvantage of
having physical meetings. I have more confidence in the influence of the
written record (particularly the public comment archives) than you obviously
do. Many of those deep pockets who have attended all of the open meetings are
still not getting satisfaction. And some who have not attended them have been
able to carry their point.
It is true that having someone physically present makes follow-up
questions/argument much easier and I do believe that can make a substantial
difference in complex issues where additional information is almost always
called for. This is rarely what happens in the large, open meetings however;
there are usually too many speakers in line to have detailed discussion on any
point. I have high hopes for audio and telephony.
It has been interesting experience this year trying to get substantive work
done on an international committee. Telephone conferences are awkward; one
doesn't know who among the 13+ people on the conference call wants to speak
next (you can't raise your hand and there are no visual signals). So the calls
are slow because everyone waits politely to see who wishes to speak next.
Conversation that would take 15 minutes if everyone sat at the same table
takes 45 minutes on the phone. E-mail certainly allows participation that
otherwise would be unaffordable, but I have found it less than ideal for
complex negotiations...at least when there is a time constraint. And few
people take the time to read through the voluminous written reports that
comprise all this information. It takes an enormous among of bandwidth to
discuss complicated issues and the back-and-forth conversation of real time
simply cannot be improved upon, IMHO. I've probably spent 20 minutes typing
this out when I could have delivered it verbally it in 3.
> And that particular group is always going to be the same people, no matter
> where the meetings are held. It becomes, in essence, a nice trip for
> the core corporate players in these proceedings, and a convenient way
> to get away from everyone online.
There absolutely are a lot of familiar faces who have approached the podium
frequently. That's why the timer is needful.
I wouldn't say that the meetings get away from everyone online. The online
comments don't disappear; they're right there in the record. Staff read them
and report to the Board members; some Board members read a lot of them, I'm
told. In the area where I've been closely involved (the at-large membership),
online commentary has been quite influential. As far as I know, the MAC
discussed virtually every issue raised by e-mail comment to the official
sites. We rotated official responsibility for reading and reporting on them
so that none would be overlooked and of course, many of us read most of them
just because we're interested. We favorably supported more than one. We've
also disagreed with some. We also disagreed with many that were raised at the
open meetings.
I came away with a lot of faith in the ability of a thoughtful, responsible
committee to absorb a great deal of information and opinion and come to
reasonable conclusions. Couldn't agree with every one of them, but do not
believe that any were based on unfair or irrational attitudes. To me, the
bottom line is to elect people to the Board whom you can trust to make that
kind of effort and try to find fair and reasonable solutions.
> ...and those people aren't all Anglo American Males. But it's always the
> same contingent of people from around the world. It's nothing more
> than a publicity stunt doubling for legitimate outreach on the part
> of ICANN, coupled with an exclusionary tactic.
Heavens no, a lot of them are Anglo American Females! :-) My very unofficial
estimate is that about 20% of the people at each meeting are new/local. I
don't think holding all the meetings in CA is much of an improvement, though.
> > There are a couple other factors to consider. The Net debate is
> >conducted usin g English, a language that is native to you and me,
> >but is not always so easy fo r the rest of the planet to use
> >succinctly. Also, Net access is very, very cheap in most parts of
> >the US; however, as you know, this is not the case in the rest of the
> >world. My point is that we do no service to Peruvians, Chileans or
> >Brazilians by enfo rcing these conditions harshly. Why not let the
> >Meeting Chair use some discretion b ased on how easy it seems for the
> >speaker to get his/her point across?
>
> Unless the various groups there will be conducting their meetings in
> a language other than English (not translated, but actually holding
> the meetings in something other than English) this becomes a moot point.
The meetings are conducted in English. English is not the native language for
the regional hosts. They will therefore be at a disadvantage meeting the time
limit on speakers. I'm suggesting that the Chair have discretion to allow
those who are struggling with their English a little more time to complete
their thoughts.
> ...and what makes you think that the average person in these non-US
> countries, who wants so badly to participate, will more easily be able
> to travel to whatever location ICANN has chosen, than to afford
> some form of e-mail access?
I said no such thing. I only said it was easier for them to travel to their
local region than to the US. But I would give first priority on comment to
the natives of the host region because the reason for having a meeting there
is to give them a chance to speak.
I am not saying that input from other sources should be denied. I'm part of
the team that is providing Net access for those who cannot be there.
> If you think that sitting in silence (no network), waiting for ICANN
> to deign to bring their travelling roadshow to their host country is
> sufficient as a method of inclusion, you're very, very wrong.
You may say this, but I surely didn't.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
