I agree with Jonathan on this point and also the integrity of a comments is better protected when the user does not have the possibility to change or correct it (but of course it has the possibility to resubmit the comment in corrected version).
One thing that bothered me during public comments on .xxx was the fact that a mail template was used to mass-comment, saying the same thing again and again.
Freedom of speech is fine, and vital. But abuse of the freedom of speech is also annoying.So limiting this kind of online demonstration would be a good idea.
In reply to Frederic's point, I agree fully about annoyance. However, let me suggest something from prior experience. I worked in the US Congress in the days when mass stock postcards were used instead of email. Using that kind of tactic instead of having commentors submit their own words, no matter how sophisticated or basic, was one indicator that the Congressman used on whether the position espoused had merit and truly had any broad support. He was not alone in that attitude. I don't know if it would be appropriate for ICANN staff to take that attitude but figure that it's worth mentioning.
One way to accept the mass emails but avoid clutter would be to post a single copy with names of those submitting it. I'm tossing that out only as a possibility I realize the logistical headache that it could be for staff.
4 Comments
Jonathan Zuck
I think a combination of registration and unidirectional commenting will provide sufficient security for our needs.
Jonathan
Sokol Haxhiu
I agree with Jonathan on this point and also the integrity of a comments is better protected when the user does not have the possibility to change or correct it (but of course it has the possibility to resubmit the comment in corrected version).
Frederic Guillemaut
One thing that bothered me during public comments on .xxx was the fact that a mail template was used to mass-comment, saying the same thing again and again.
Freedom of speech is fine, and vital. But abuse of the freedom of speech is also annoying.So limiting this kind of online demonstration would be a good idea.
Don Blumenthal
I also agree with Jonathan's points.
In reply to Frederic's point, I agree fully about annoyance. However, let me suggest something from prior experience. I worked in the US Congress in the days when mass stock postcards were used instead of email. Using that kind of tactic instead of having commentors submit their own words, no matter how sophisticated or basic, was one indicator that the Congressman used on whether the position espoused had merit and truly had any broad support. He was not alone in that attitude. I don't know if it would be appropriate for ICANN staff to take that attitude but figure that it's worth mentioning.
One way to accept the mass emails but avoid clutter would be to post a single copy with names of those submitting it. I'm tossing that out only as a possibility I realize the logistical headache that it could be for staff.