[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [ga] RE: [IFWP] ANNOUNCE: ICANN-Santiago Remote Participation
- From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <000201beecc2$9bca75a0$04662581@tp5701>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Ben Edelman wrote:
> That said, there will be two new rules about remote comments. First, that
> no comment can be longer than a length still to be decided but likely about
> 250 words. We don't intend to be mean about this -- but longer comments are
So long as the same rule is imposed on physically present speakers, I have
no major objection.
I do fear that the consequence is that you will have "questions" over
reasoned debate. As a result, measuring "consensus" coming out of such a
process becomes ever more problematic....I'm not sure, though, I have a
better alternative (again, assuming the same process applies to the
Since written comments including those unread will, I gather, be
world-readable, I guess people can give URLs for more detailed stuff if
they need to.
> In conclusion: We're trying, folks! I'm working about as hard as I can
> here -- did email for quite literally two hours a day while on "vacation"
As usual I give the Berkman team near-perfect marks. You guys should pat
yourselves on the back a few times. I wish I could say the same for
One stray thought: how about having a few emails selected at random, just
to blunt charges of selection bias?
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
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. <--