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

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

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 a very lousy rule.

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:

> 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 in place through a combination of code and
> discretion of the Berkman staff.
> 
> But what do we do if there just turn out to be too many comments that pass
> these three criteria?
> 
> Some ideas off the top of my head:
> 
> * FIFO (first-in-first-out).  We've got time for, say, eight remote comments
> per agenda item.  First six people to send their messages get read (say, in
> their entirety), others go into the archive.
> 
> * 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.
> "Significant" is of course the tricky part -- he could look for views not
> already stated by physical participants, but then the majority voice is
> artificially weakened by his selection process so that doesn't seem quite
> right.  He could look for messages that seem most thought-provoking from an
> academic perspective, but neither is that quite what we need.  Yet if one
> placed sufficient trust in Mr. Zittrain -- as I'll admit I personally do,
> make no mistake about it -- this could be acceptable.
> 
> * Randomly, as Michael Froomkin suggested.
> 
> * Some other way, including perhaps some combination of the above.  I do
> like the idea of combining random selection with some other method -- say,
> take seven messages selected by whatever process is used primarily, then one
> random message from the remainder.
> 
> I really do think this is a hard problem.  Personally, I'm totally
> dissatisfied with the incentives of FIFO ("write early and you'll get
> recognized, quality no matter").  But, I can understand why Moderator's
> Choice isn't appealing to those who, for whatever reason, just don't trust
> the particular individuals doing the job, perhaps preferring a system that
> goes beyond the moral character of the staff involved.
> 
> 
> > I thought the mix of remote participation and physical participation at
> the
> > Names Council meeting on June 25 worked fairly well, with a large screen
> at
> > the front of the room. The pNC checked the screen occasionally, but
> > haphazardly.  Fairness dictates building those checks into the physical
> > agenda every ten or fifteen minutes.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the particulars of the NC's remote participation, but
> their methodology sounds reasonable.  Yet realize that it's not so hard to
> do remote participation a small, low-volume scale.  Indeed, from my
> recollections (admittedly just that, but I think likely reflected in the
> comments on this list) of the remote participation on the DNSO and GAC
> meetings on the first day of Berlin, things go well with remote
> participation until some critical point of messages-received-per-minute is
> reached.  When below the threshold, it's easy to choose messages -- just
> apply baseline criteria like the three Ellen suggested above, and indeed
> that's what we did that first day.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->   It's hot and humid here.   <--