My vote goes to the icann.blog entry regarding the Accra transcripts. It's so good I still can't tell if it is a joke or not. Bret Fausett says:|
One of the great new developments at the Ghana meeting was the real-time transcription used by the scribes to capture the comments of the speakers.He then provides a link to each of the two transcripts. Links to both of them can be found on ICANN's site here and just so you know I'm not carrying a joke too far and using an obfuscated link, that pointer is to: http://www.icann.org/accra/
You can copy and paste or type it in yourself.
So what is the evidence for this being a joke?:
1. It was posted April 1st.
2. There's no mention of it on the ICANN website front page.
3. As Bret was at the meeting the real time transcript may have seemed a great new development, those of us who participated remotely know that real time transcription a la Berkman was sorely missed. But for Alexander Svensson's independent and impromptu scribing there would have been none at all. Hardly a great new development. I'm not suggesting Bret initiated this joke, but I can't tell if he was taken in or is playing along.
4. The Accra transcripts are long overdue, the human ones from previous meetings showed up much quicker than these machine ones, you'd think the opposite would be the case. I, or anyone watching live, could have done screen grabs of the onsite transcription when it was shown on the Realmedia feed and run it thru OCR software and had it posted much more quickly. For them to show up finally now is suspicious.
5. These are only from the Public Comment Forum. Why not also put up the BoD meeting at the same time? Is it because posting false minutes would be going too far?
6. The transcripts are in ALL CAPS, which anyone but the most clueless newbie knows is annoying. There's been software available for most any platform you can think of to change the letter case for at least a couple of decades (many of them also freeware) that will, for example, keep proper nouns and the first word of a sentence capitalized. How hard would it be for them to have done this first? This SHOUTS at it being a hoax.
7. While I haven't read the entire transcript word for word, did Vint really call for a break every chance he got? Did Stuart Lynn really say:
IT'S A VERY ACTIVE COMMITTEE. IT'S ISSUED TWO PAPERS, ONE OF WHICH IS A POSITION PAPER THAT LEADS TO VICE
THE AT-LARGE STUDY COMMITTEE, COMPLETING ITS REPORT THIS MORNING, OR PRESENTATION. AND SHOULD THE BOARD DECIDE IN FAVOR OF ELECTIONS, DENISE MICHEL WILL STAY IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH MYSELF, ANDREW, AND THE AT LARGE CONTINGENCY FOR DECIDING THIS.
I'M ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED THAT KENT CRISPIN HAS AGREED TO JOIN US ON AN 80% BASIS AND HAS IS ALREADY MAKING A DIFFERENCE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT.
Those are just a few examples within paras of each other in two quite long documents. There are many, many other similar examples sprinkled throughout. Surely these couldn't be real statements, could they?
The evidence against this being a joke includes:
1. Even by my 1.1 litre watch (and didja see the BBC thing about Big Ben going digital?), it isn't April 1st anymore, but the pages are still there, and there's no Update saying April Fools.
2. It is on the ICANN site.
3. I watched much of the meeting (and some of it twice or more via the archives) and at least some of the transcript is accurate, quite a few of the weird quotes really were said.
3. ICANN hasn't previously shown a proclivity for self-deprecating humor, at least not intentionally.
On balance I'd have to say it's most likely a joke and deserves at least an honorable mention. -g