Ben, FWIW I think you have been doing a great job against all odds. Also thanks
for the insights into the technical environment you were dealing with.
That said, I am curious. I have no idea how/why/where/when you managed to get
the impression from Joop's comments that there was any conspiracy or in fact
any intended slur. It may have been the only inference you were able to draw,
but it is probably the only inference I am unable to draw.
was there more text that you omitted to quote perhaps?
I dont have access to my archives so I am unable to verify what is going on.
If I am missing something, please enlighten me. Alleging without substance
that Joop alleged something is just as serious as the presumed allegation
(sorry for the horrible sentence construction. I left my brain behind as well
as my files).
Dan Steinberg.
> Joop wrote:
>
> (presumably referring to a portion of the 8/26 Board Meeting?)
> > <snip>
> > We were not the only ones to miss it. The audio/video server happened to
> be
> > down too, for 20 minutes.
> > So the only record we have are the scribe notes at
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/icann/santiago/archive/
> >
> > Unfortunately, it turned out to have been the most interesting part of the
> > meeting, where Esther apparently asked the Board searing questions as to
> > why they didn't want to heed the GA's resolution to let the IDNO in, or at
> > least discuss openly why not, and have it please on the agenda right now ,
> > here in Santiago.
> > These questions apparently were not answered.
>
> Joop,
>
> I don't know if you intend to suggest that the failure of certain live feeds
> was a part of some conspiracy of which I was presumably a part, but that's
> the only inference I can draw from reading what you wrote above. That's a
> pretty serious allegation -- one that, if true, would certainly reflect very
> poorly on the ICANN board, not to mention on the Berkman Center. So, I feel
> it appropriate to respond briefly, to at least give the list my perspective
> on what happened.
>
> First of all, you should realize that remote participation depends almost
> completely on a reliable TCP/IP link from the meeting room to the Internet
> cloud. To be frank, we didn't have that in Santiago. The supposed 2
> megabit per second line in Santiago never got over 500Kbps as far as I know,
> and of course it was generally far below that, with packet loss as high as
> 70% at times and network congestion often making it almost completely
> useless. I don't say this to criticize local organizers -- they gave us the
> best network connectivity they had available; they went to great lengths to
> improve our connectivity to the extent possible; and I commend them for
> their efforts. Rather, I want to note that we faced some serious
> constraints; realize that, without a link to the Internet cloud, we couldn't
> even upload changes to our web server.
>
> On the morning of the 26th, we lost out network connection at what I
> consider the worst possible time -- about ten minutes before the board
> meeting was scheduled to begin -- and it unfortunately didn't return for
> some half an hour. During that time, it was indeed impossible for us update
> the remote participation page to reflect the day's new live streaming links.
> Thus, as I recall, network failure is the reason why remote participants
> could not access the live feeds for approximately the first twenty minutes
> of the board meeting.
>
> But the show went on, in the sense that the video encoders were fully
> operational and hard at work. Indeed, I contest your assertion that the
> only record of any portion of the meeting is the scribe's notes, for I don't
> recall the video encoders failing at any point in the meeting. The
> RealVideo archive linked from the Board Meeting section of
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/> correctly begins with
> discussion by Mr. Fitzsimmons of the extension of directors' terms, the
> first item on the agenda posted at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/agenda-082699.html>.
> I'll admit that I haven't watched the entire 2-hour video of the board
> meeting, but I don't recall it having gaps or breaks of any sort, and even
> if it did, it seems to me exceptionally unlikely that the separate REUNA
> recordings (<http://www.reuna.cl/icann/>) would happen to have gaps at the
> same time. That said, I'm certainly open to being proven wrong; do send
> citations (hour-minutes-seconds) of any gaps in this or any other recording,
> and I'll look into the problem and redigitize from videotape backups if
> necessary.
>
>
> So here's where I stand, Joop and all. I know the webcast didn't go
> perfectly -- during the 20-minute period at the start of the board meeting,
> all Berkman feeds were down (though REUNA feeds, through a separate network,
> continued to operate as expected). And there were a few other times
> throughout the meetings when one or more (but, I believe, never all!) of the
> live feeds were not operational for users connected to the Internet through
> the US.
>
> However, with respect to allegations as serious as conspiracy to alter the
> meeting records, I'd like you to give us the benefit of the doubt. Don't
> assume that a phenomenon perfectly well explained by network failure was in
> fact intentional, or at least don't conclude as much until you've found us
> unwilling to correct the record as necessary to the extent possible.
> Indeed, I'd like to think I'm pretty open to fixing the archive to the
> extent it needs fixing, so for you to allege that I'm somehow conspiring
> against your efforts or the IDNO is, well, shocking.
>
>
> Again, if there's a portion of the archive that you believe to be incomplete
> or in error in any way, please let me know, on or off-list, with as specific
> a citation as possible. (Example of a good video citation: "In the ICANN
> 8/26 Board Meeting RealVideo, there's no audio from 1:20:15 to 1:25:30 when
> the board was discussing membership.") If I fail to look into your
> complaint, tell you what I believe happened, and make an effort to resolve
> the problem or at least tell you why it can't be fixed, then you're free, as
> far as I'm concerned, to cry foul. But if you don't give me the opportunity
> to correct what may well be just a simple oversight or mistake on my part, I
> just don't think it's fair for you to allege anything out of the ordinary.
>
>
>
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet and Society
> Harvard Law School
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Travel-Net Web Mail.
http://www.travel-net.com/
