Publishing the transcipt

Tue Jan 12 17:18:06 CET 2010

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? 
--MM
________________________________________
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 9:00 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
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 <MWong at piercelaw.edu<mailto:MWong at piercelaw.edu>>
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: mwong at piercelaw.edu<mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>
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 <Rosemary.Sinclair at ATUG.ORG.AU<mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair at ATUG.ORG.AU>>
To:     <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
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: rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au<mailto:rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au>
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:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2010 10:16 AM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
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.
>