Open Networks, Closed Regimes - Revision history

CKennedy: /* The Day of the Class */

2009-06-11T03:48:08Z

The Day of the Class

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 11 June 2009
Line 125:		Line 125:

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxaKNUXP9m4 Conor's Introductory Presentation 1]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxaKNUXP9m4 Conor's Introductory Presentation 1]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8hDCchlvCk&feature=related Conor's Introductory Presentation 2]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8hDCchlvCk&feature=related Conor's Introductory Presentation 2]

Line 130:		Line 131:

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQmkuqCXBeg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 1]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQmkuqCXBeg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 1]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CBs16PNBU Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 2]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CBs16PNBU Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 2]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PxRjeFGSZo Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 3]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PxRjeFGSZo Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 3]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyaT88NDRg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 4]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyaT88NDRg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 4]

Line 151:		Line 155:

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09N8VNDkioc Groups discuss their Proposals 1]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09N8VNDkioc Groups discuss their Proposals 1]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijW-xwJUII Groups discuss their Proposals 2]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijW-xwJUII Groups discuss their Proposals 2]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbVDH1zvcZU Groups discuss their Proposals 3]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbVDH1zvcZU Groups discuss their Proposals 3]

	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3YLs9aZHTQ Colin Maclay gives feedback and Joshua concludes]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3YLs9aZHTQ Colin Maclay gives feedback and Joshua concludes]

CKennedy: /* The Day of the Class */

2009-06-11T03:47:40Z

The Day of the Class

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 11 June 2009
Line 129:		Line 129:
	After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.		After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.

	[Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQmkuqCXBeg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 1]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32CBs16PNBU Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 2]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PxRjeFGSZo Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 3]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyaT88NDRg Dan Moderates a Conversation Between Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin 4]

	Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.		Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.

CKennedy: /* The Day of the Class */

2009-06-10T19:17:10Z

The Day of the Class

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 10 June 2009
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.		Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.

	[~~Link to come pending hosting site~~'s ~~copyright approval~~ Conor's Presentation]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxaKNUXP9m4 Conor's Introductory Presentation 1]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8hDCchlvCk&feature=related Conor's Introductory Presentation 2]

	After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.		After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.

	[~~Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval~~ Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]		[Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]

	Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.		Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.

	[~~Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval~~: Joshua ~~Intros~~ the ~~Sim~~]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kDQb0Y9SPs Joshua Runs the Simulation]
	~~[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval: Groups Discussing]~~


	The first 40 or so minutes of the hour-long simulation period was scheduled as follows:		The first 40 or so minutes of the hour-long simulation period was scheduled as follows:
Line 148:		Line 147:
	Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.		Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.

	[~~Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval~~: ~~The~~ Proposals]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09N8VNDkioc Groups discuss their Proposals 1]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ijW-xwJUII Groups discuss their Proposals 2]
	[~~Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval~~: Colin~~'s Feedback~~ and ~~Class Conclusion~~]		[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbVDH1zvcZU Groups discuss their Proposals 3]
			[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3YLs9aZHTQ Colin Maclay gives feedback and Joshua concludes]

	Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.		Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.

ConorK: /* The Day of the Class */

2009-05-15T21:17:05Z

The Day of the Class

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 15 May 2009
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.		Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.

	[ Conor's Presentation]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval Conor's Presentation]

	After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.		After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.

	[ Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]

	Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.		Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.

	[ Joshua Intros the Sim]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval: Joshua Intros the Sim]
	[ Groups Discussing]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval: Groups Discussing]


Line 148:		Line 148:
	Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.		Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.

	[ The Proposals]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval: The Proposals]

	[ Colin's Feedback and Class Conclusion]		[Link to come pending hosting site's copyright approval: Colin's Feedback and Class Conclusion]

	Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.		Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.

ConorK: /* The Day of the Class */

2009-05-15T21:04:56Z

The Day of the Class

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 15 May 2009
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.		Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.

	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/600669309e9a007b/~~ Conor's Presentation]		[ Conor's Presentation]

	After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.		After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.

	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/60066833c480f445/~~ Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]		[ Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]

	Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.		Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.

	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/600668249bd7e31f/~~ Joshua Intros the Sim]		[ Joshua Intros the Sim]
	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/60066842fe0aa667/~~ Groups Discussing]		[ Groups Discussing]


Line 148:		Line 148:
	Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.		Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.

	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/60066804d2db3acf/~~ The Proposals]		[ The Proposals]

	[~~http://www.zshare.net/video/60066837277be85b/~~ Colin's Feedback and Class Conclusion]		[ Colin's Feedback and Class Conclusion]

	Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.		Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.

Danray: /* Problem to be solved */

2009-05-15T20:58:15Z

Problem to be solved

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 15 May 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:


	<div style="float:right; padding:0 1em; margin-left:1em; clear:both; width:66%; background:#ffc; border:1px dashed #575744;">Our students had access to an earlier version of this wiki page. For the information in this section, unformatted text indicates material that was available at the time of our presentation, and yellow boxes like this one are annotations added after the fact think of them like the director's commentary. The actual revision of the page at the time of the class session is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Open_Networks%2C_Closed_Regimes&oldid=2204 here]</div>US-based internet services are used by citizens of every regime in the world. Western-based internet companies operate these services in many countries where governments routinely request or demand sensitive information about their citizens. How should high-level officers respond when their companies receive requests to turn over information which violate privacy and anonymity expectations? How can citizens, NGOs, and government actors influence the way these companies respond?		<div style="float:right; padding:0 1em; margin-left:1em; clear:both; width:66%; background:#ffc; border:1px dashed #575744;">Our students had access to an earlier version of this wiki page. For the information in this section, unformatted text indicates material that was available at the time of our presentation, and yellow boxes like this one are annotations added after the fact think of them like the director's commentary. The actual revision of the page at the time of the class session is [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Open_Networks%2C_Closed_Regimes&oldid=2204 here].</div>US-based internet services are used by citizens of every regime in the world. Western-based internet companies operate these services in many countries where governments routinely request or demand sensitive information about their citizens. How should high-level officers respond when their companies receive requests to turn over information which violate privacy and anonymity expectations? How can citizens, NGOs, and government actors influence the way these companies respond?

	=== Precis ===		=== Precis ===

ConorK at 20:52, 15 May 2009

2009-05-15T20:52:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 15 May 2009
Line 124:		Line 124:
	Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.		Conor opened the class with a Power Point presentation that reviewed the basic outline of the issues at hand. This served both as a refresher of the introductory reading material and as a point of reference for the groups within the simulation.

	~~+ Clip~~		[http://www.zshare.net/video/600669309e9a007b/ Conor's Presentation]

	After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.		After the introduction, Dan moderated a conversation between two stakeholders in the current international contretemps over networked speech control issues: Colin Maclay of the Berkman Center and Andrew McLaughlin from Google. Colin discussed difficulties involved in creating the Global Network Initiative and acquiring more signatories, especially in Europe. Andrew discussed changes that he thought would help make the GNI more useful to individual users.

	~~+ Clip~~		[http://www.zshare.net/video/60066833c480f445/ Colin Maclay and Andrew McLaughlin]

	Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.		Once everyone was caught up to speed on the tensions which would have to be navigated in the simulation, Joshua explained the simulation to the participants. Groups were asked to develop a strategy for creating a widely acceptable solution to the "Open Networks, Closed Borders" problem, to discuss their solution with other groups and acquire partners, and then to present their revised solutions to the class at large. After feedback, the solutions would be voted upon by the members of the class.

	~~+ Clip~~		[http://www.zshare.net/video/600668249bd7e31f/ Joshua Intros the Sim]
			[http://www.zshare.net/video/60066842fe0aa667/ Groups Discussing]


	The first 40 or so minutes of the hour-long simulation period was scheduled as follows:		The first 40 or so minutes of the hour-long simulation period was scheduled as follows:
Line 146:		Line 148:
	Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.		Each group was then given two minutes to present their final proposals to the class, and then Colin Maclay, team lead on the GNI project at the Berkman Center, offered feedback as to the viability and utility of each solution.

	The ~~proposals:~~		[http://www.zshare.net/video/60066804d2db3acf/ The Proposals]

	~~+ Clip~~

	~~Colin's feedback:~~

	~~+ Clip~~		[http://www.zshare.net/video/60066837277be85b/ Colin's Feedback and Class Conclusion]

	Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.		Originally, the voting was scheduled for the last five minutes of class, but proposal presentations and feedback exceeded the available time as it was, and so voting was pushed off into post-class time.

Danray: /* Introduction */

2009-05-15T20:51:18Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 15 May 2009
Line 293:		Line 293:
	For our presentation, we turned to PowerPoint. There are a few basic trade offs to keep in mind when presenting on a complex topic:		For our presentation, we turned to PowerPoint. There are a few basic trade offs to keep in mind when presenting on a complex topic:

	-Keep the audience engaged v. substance		*Keep the audience engaged v. substance
			*Length of presentations v. depth
	-Length of presentations v. depth		*Accounting for a large differential in pre-existing knowledge on the topic
			*Navigating the political winds: recognizing what's fact, what's opinion/analysis, and what falls between the two
	-Accounting for a large differential in pre-existing knowledge on the topic

	-Navigating the political winds: recognizing what's fact, what's opinion/analysis, and what falls between the two

	The best approach to balancing these trade offs is working on the presentation over time, so that you have time to react to your own work when you come back to it. Otherwise, make sure to solicit audience opinion so that nobody feels there's a perspective that you're consciously keeping out of the discussion.		The best approach to balancing these trade offs is working on the presentation over time, so that you have time to react to your own work when you come back to it. Otherwise, make sure to solicit audience opinion so that nobody feels there's a perspective that you're consciously keeping out of the discussion.

ConorK: /* Successes and Failures */

2009-05-15T20:38:23Z

Successes and Failures

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 15 May 2009
Line 284:		Line 284:
	The dynamic between one speaker in the room and another over the web was interesting, but presented the challenge of equalizing the debate. When one person appears ten times as large as the other, the default is for the audience to pay more attention to the bigger speaker.		The dynamic between one speaker in the room and another over the web was interesting, but presented the challenge of equalizing the debate. When one person appears ten times as large as the other, the default is for the audience to pay more attention to the bigger speaker.

	The simulation was popular with the class and brought a lot of energy into the session. Its efficacy as a pedagogical tool is unclear; while it may not have imparted any additional awareness of the complicated problems faced by negotiators in this field which had not already been discussed in the introduction, it did serve as an incentive to read (lest players be exposed for ignorance in front of their classmates), and also as a way of driving home the problem and making the class memorable. No solution emerging from the simulation achieved any kind of workable consensus. ~~While this is~~, ~~perhaps~~, ~~unsurprising~~, ~~it also suggests room for improvement in simulation design (about which more below)~~.		The simulation was popular with the class and brought a lot of energy into the session. Its efficacy as a pedagogical tool is unclear; while it may not have imparted any additional awareness of the complicated problems faced by negotiators in this field which had not already been discussed in the introduction, it did serve as an incentive to read (lest players be exposed for ignorance in front of their classmates), and also as a way of driving home the problem and making the class memorable. No solution emerging from the simulation achieved any kind of workable consensus, but no solution has emerged from any real world equivalents of the negotiation over human rights and internet privacy in China.

			The best part of the simulation was that it served as an open venue that induced a sort of deliberate democracy, in which students started with an idea of their stakeholders' interests but changed that idea during open debate. There was active participation because our readings were well prepared, the introduction to the simulation was spot on, and the classroom permitted exploration.

	=== Role of Technology ===		=== Role of Technology ===

ConorK: /* Introduction */

2009-05-15T20:33:18Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 15 May 2009
Line 289:		Line 289:
	==== Introduction ====		==== Introduction ====

	For our presentation, we turned to PowerPoint. ''~~'CONOR~~, ~~IS THERE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE UTILITY OF PP IN DEVISING THE PRESENTATION?'~~''		For our presentation, we turned to PowerPoint. There are a few basic trade offs to keep in mind when presenting on a complex topic:

			-Keep the audience engaged v. substance

			-Length of presentations v. depth

			-Accounting for a large differential in pre-existing knowledge on the topic

			-Navigating the political winds: recognizing what's fact, what's opinion/analysis, and what falls between the two

			The best approach to balancing these trade offs is working on the presentation over time, so that you have time to react to your own work when you come back to it. Otherwise, make sure to solicit audience opinion so that nobody feels there's a perspective that you're consciously keeping out of the discussion.

	==== Discussion ====		==== Discussion ====