Regarding the number of people in the discussion, the model we were testing had 6 people from At-Large and 6 from the Board. So there was a restriction on both sides. The selection from the ALAC as my call. As I said during the meeting, I felt some obligation to follow the prescribed plan of six At-Large members and six Board members. It was clearly less than optimal. And the table format was horrible, both from the point of view of those at the table (vast amounts of space) and those in the audience (looking at people's backs). There were a number of interventions which were off-topic, but short of having a button to cut of someone else's microphone, I don't know how we can control that. I will be putting together a candid comment and will submit it for ALAC discussion. Alan At 23/06/2015 02:58 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I would appreciate thoughts on the new format that we tried today for the ALAC-Board meeting.
I'll kick it off with my thoughts:
1. I thought that on the ALAC side, it was too much an "Alan Greenberg show".
2. There was a question/comment by Sebastien that I did not take because the planned intent was to have onlyl the people at the table participate. In light of 1, I am not sure this was appropriate.
3. At one point we contemplated having a timer. In light of a few of the interventions, I am inclined to do so next time.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)