<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [alac] A Public Meeting in Advance of Mar del Plata / was "Opening our meetings"
- To: "Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [alac] A Public Meeting in Advance of Mar del Plata / was "Opening our meetings"
- From: Jean Armour Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:51:22 -0500
Robert's right , we need to plan for success-- not that skype or
equivalent isn't part of that solution, I think we should use a lot
of models-- the other thing is that we need to publicize whatever we
decide to do right away because time is short. For an asynch solution
we could put up a threaded discussion group on each board agenda item
but --we sort of have that and it's all but moribund--really need a
better way to publicize the availability of the forum's existence. It
should definitely be posted to Icannwatch, Slashdot, other places
like that-- but also more mainstream places-- we have trolled the
technorati and need to expand that but also go to where the "at
large" lives--and lots of times this will mean explaining to at large
why root (etc) matters.
When I mention a discussion group I mean a real one that won't post
the junk mail- the forum we have now is embarrassing to say the
least! Denise, can someone please go into the fora and delete the
spam? John Levine please jump in and give advice--(John runs hundreds
of lists, including one for Net-mom--and his security is very tight
regarding this sort of thing.) Using another model, there's phpBB
though it was recently hacked. Anyone recommend anything else on that
line?
JP
At 1:54 PM +0100 3/4/05, Roberto Gaetano recently said:
I am in favour of opening up our meetings in Mar del Plata as much
as possible.
As a matter of fact, I was a little puzzled myself when I saw the
initially proposed agenda, with closed sessions outnumbering the
open ones.
The problem, the way I see it, is only logistic: while for an
internal meeting we can live with a room for 15 and minimum
equipment, that would not be sufficient for an open meeting.
As for the teleconference before the meeting, I have mixed feelings.
If the purpose is to present the agenda and to gather feedback, a
teleconference might be an overkill. If, on the other hand, what we
are aiming for is to set a precedent for having open teleconferences
for discussion, and therefore interaction among all participants, I
would prefer to discuss the implications of this choice before
making a decision.
The problem is, IMHO, scaleability. I am sympathetic to John's
experience as Mayor of his small village. However, I could hardly
see the same approach working for Los Angeles. We are addressing an
AtLarge community that now happens to count a number of active
members that are even outnumbered by the inhabitants of John's
village, but we cannot think that the size will remain that small.
As a matter of fact, if we do believe that the numbers will remain
on this order of magnitude, we might as well close the shop right
now and go home.
In other words, we need to design and propose solutions that work
for Los Angeles, not for a small village. What will be the
consequence of starting by having open teleconferences now, and
later having to discontinue the practice because the solution does
not scale?
Just my 2 cents.
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|