[governance] remote participation via standardized protocols (was Re: Open consultations)

Sat May 21 11:47:05 EDT 2011

Sigh. Roland, did you truly not understand that in this entire
thread what I'm talking about is that in my opinion, there is
not enough practical emphasis on standardization of protocols
and data formats for communication via the internet (in the
sense of formal development of suitable open standards and their
adoption), and that this lack of emphasis is (of course together
with other factors) causing practical problems?

Greetings,
Norbert

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <20110519161725.4342615C0DF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 18:17:25 on 
> Thu, 19 May 2011, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> >> >which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the
> >> >latter.
> >>
> >> One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off
> >> against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and
> >> play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.
> >
> >The path to solve this kind of problems is standardization.
> >
> >Why do you oppose that?
> 
> I don't. If everyone used the same "standard" version of Windows, and 
> Apple and Linux were banned, everything would have a much better chance 
> of installing immediately. That's the theory behind those application 
> developers who say "I know for sure that this works in Internet 
> Explorer, use it on other browsers at your peril".
> 
> On the other hand, I also realise that diversity is good, and the 
> Internet is better suited than many other technologies at allowing 
> people to carve their own applications and platforms. But if you go down 
> that route, you have to accept that there will be teething problems.
> 
> I speak as someone who, having surveyed the early browser market and 
> found issues with the only two candidates at the time (Netscape and 
> Microsoft) commissioned some people to write a new browser - which we 
> shipped for free with subscriptions to the ISP I was managing.
> 
> Another bunch of people came to the same decision over email clients, 
> and I'm still using the one they wrote, 16 years later. Unfortunately, 
> standards even for things like email keep changing, and the client is 
> showing its age.
> 
> >> >Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
> >> >now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
> >> >someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
> >> >what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
> >> >live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
> >> >of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?
> >>
> >> Email was available
> >
> >I find your repeated assertions to the contrary of my experience very
> >frustrating.
> 
> Your experience was that the email was ignored. I don't think there was 
> a *technical* issue with it being delivered (unless you have not told us 
> that it bounced back).
> 
> >> (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used
> >> by anyone)
> >
> >As I wrote, my timely and appropriate attempt to communicate by email
> >was ignored.
> 
> That's not the fault of the email protocol. There was an ICANN meeting 
> quite a few years ago, when their remote participation was in its 
> infancy, and the only way I could communicate with the room was by 
> emailing one of the board members sitting on the platform!
> 
> During this week's meetings in Geneva, due to problems with the 
> connectivity and the reluctance of the ITU's remote moderator to 
> interrupt the meeting as often as the Adobe remote participants might 
> have wished, the best way to participate was by Skype to people in the 
> room. I know that the Caucus has used Skype in this way in the past - 
> it's up to the co-ordinators in the room to set this up.
> 
> >> >(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
> >> >that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
> >> >watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
> >> >transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)
> >>
> >> There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this
> >> afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.
> >>
> >> eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
> >> vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no
> >
> >During the morning session, the morning session link also didn't
> >work.
> 
> I didn't make a note of the link I used in the morning.
> 
> >> That's a webmastering/editing issue
> >
> >and a "lack of testing / double-checking" issue.
> 
> Yes, that's a problem that any organisation faces when setting up remote 
> participation. It's very difficult to get everything right at the first 
> attempt. The reason why ICANN and RIR remote participation works fairly 
> smoothly is because they've had lots of practice, and why the RIR I used 
> to work with, offered assistance for Vilnius.
> 
> But even then you still get sessions where one problem or another means 
> remote participants don't get the feed properly (missing sound is one of 
> the most common, as I hinted yesterday).
> 
> >> not a technology one!
> >
> >Agreed. But why didn't anyone (with the power to get issues fixed)
> >check that the links work?
> 
> Experience, lack of time, any number of reasons why it's hard to make 
> things run exactly to plan. They did a comprehensive sound check at the 
> beginning of day 1, which was good. But things still went wrong later in 
> the meeting.
> 
> >Wouldn't chances be that it'd be checked have been better if there had
> >been awareness that the Adobe "solution" doesn't work for everyone?
> 
> Not at all, the presence of the chat window alongside the webcast made 
> it very easy for participants to exchange notes between themselves and 
> the ITU technician, regarding issues such as the sound quality.
> 
> >>> Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
> >>> refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?
> >>
> >> The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available
> >> to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny
> >> that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly
> >> serviced.
> >
> >I'm not asking for downgrading of service for anyone.
> 
> Banning Adobe, for the reasons you given, would downgrade the service 
> that I get. Unless you are aware of a substitute which is "better", and 
> conforms to your requirements for "open-ness". I'm not aware of any such 
> application (see also my replies to Avri).
> 
> >But I'm asking you to stop pretending that the problems which I'm
> >pointing out don't exits
> 
> Of course there are problems, all remote participation solutions have 
> problems. What we need to understand is whether the currently deployed 
> technology is less likely to demonstrate problems overall, than other 
> ways of doing it.
> 
> >or are irrelevant to internet governance.
> 
> They are relevant to the governance of meetings which happen to be about 
> Internet Governance. But that's a different thing. Imagine the meetings 
> were discussing planes and airports instead. Would Adobe connect then 
> become an "air traffic control" issue?
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t