On 12 Jan 2010, at 17:18, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I also tilt toward the pro-transcripts position. I do think that executive discussions of strategy and policy have to be closed, but I think we are debating an open constituency meeting, are we not?
yes
a.
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Publishing the transcipt
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to remind that transcripts are useful for non-native speaker in English. it is not so convenient to listen to mp3 recordings or find a part to check or even to understand correctly what people are saying. notes are good good but they are only digest, it is useful for making quick checks but we sometimes need to follow the all flow of discussion
> @Rosemary it is not a problem to change mind during discussion, it is really good to do that. I don't agree about the approach in other boards but just having decisions in language not always understood by human isn't the best way.
> I urge for having transcripts in restricted access to members.
>
> Regards
>
> Rafik
>
> 2010/1/12 Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sorry for chiming in late - I'm with the no transcripts crowd, in part for reasons others have mentioned, and in part also because I honestly don't think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
>
> While transparency is an excellent thing, I think that in this case we achieve it by (a) having a recording, and (b) following up with either notes or public discussions.
>
> In other words, transparency (especially for its own sake) doesn't mean that *everything* is always recorded in numerous forms/media and published. Disclosure, openness and the ability (real and perceived) to speak freely should be sufficient in this case.
>
> My two (jetlagged) cents' worth,
> Mary
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>>>>
> From: Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: 1/11/2010 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Publishing the transcipt
> Hi Avri and everyone....
>
> Back from holidays and with good internet access
>
> For me - I would say NO transcripts - I never use them....
>
> And sometimes I say things only to find myself changing my mind if
> someone says something more sensible - the purpose of discussion!
>
> If the "mike" was always open in front of me maybe I would be more
> "media circumspect" - not good for free flowing discussion...
>
> In analogue mode, at many of the Board meetings I attend the practice is
> to record decisions not discussions to encourage people to put their
> views...
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosemary
>
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Managing Director, ATUG
> Chairman, INTUG
> T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889
> M: +61 413734490
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Skype: rasinclair
>
> Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
> www.atug.com.au<http://www.atug.com.au>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2010 10:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Publishing the transcipt
>
> Hi,
>
> Two people who participated in the call indicated that they did not know
> a transcript would be made public and asked that it not be. As it had
> not been made clear that the transcript would be posted for the world to
> see, I have decided to not publish based on these requests.
>
> We need, as the NCSG community to discuss how we wish to handle these
> transcripts in the future.
>
> In addition to the indication of personal concern about releasing a
> conversation they had expected not to be released in transcript form, a
> couple of other concerns were mentioned. These concerns are probably
> relevant to future transcripts.
>
> Among the issues are:
>
> - It does not appear that other SGs or constituencies make their
> transcripts available to the world. Does it put NCSG at a disadvantage
> to be the only one to do so?
> - People will not speak as freely if they know there is going to be a
> public transcript and these Policy discussion meetings need to be wide
> ranging and candid.
> - Transcripts are only approximate and do not allow for editing of one's
> remarks not even when one misspeaks.
> - Seeing all of our verbal failures in print is disturbing (how many
> times did I say 'Um' or 'like' per sentence ?)
>
> Note there were different concerns about recording or transcripts. For
> example the recording for this meeting is available because it was made
> clear that the recording was being made. One person's differentiation
> was that if someone is wiling to spend the hours listening to the
> recording well, then it is ok, but to be able to do a quick search of a
> transcript was problematic.
>
> It is possible to create a mailing list for the NCSG, once we get all of
> the membership stuff squared away, that allows for member's only access
> to the transcript. It could also probably be set up that way in a net
> community like ning. But this is just an implementations issue. The
> first question is:
>
> - No transcripts
> - Policy discussion transcripts closed and only available to the policy
> committee made up of council members and SG leadership
> - Policy discussion transcript closed and only available to members of
> the NCSG
> - Policy discussion transcript open to the world.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 7 Jan 2010, at 14:41, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I received a question about the appropriateness of publishing the
> transcript.
>>
>> So I have, for the time being, removed it from the website pending
> this question:
>>
>> Of the people on the call yesterday, are there any who object to the
> publication of the transcript. Please let me know privately - if you
> don't want to say so in public. If I don't hear any objection in the
> next 48 hours, I will make it available again. If anyone objects, I will
> not make it public.
>>
>> Note: people were told it was being recorded and had assumed people
> had no problem with that. We did not explicitly mention that a
> transcirpt would be made available.
>>
>> I would also like to ask the question in general:
>>
>> Do people accept that these policy discussions be recorded and that
> the recordings and transcripts be made public?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>
|
