Re: [ga] remote participation

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alex and all remaining assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote on 18.02.01, 13:45:48:
> > If Michael, Sotiris and all those who would love to participate f2f, but
> > can't, can succeed with an experiment that can make remote participants
> > truly feel part of the meetings and able to give and get the same input as
> > local participants, this would be a major riveting experience with Net
> > enabled technology.
> > This alone would make it worthwhile to sit through a lot of the more boring
> > stuff that is presented during ICANN meetings.
>
> Having been a remote 'partipant' so far, listening to
> RealAudio, looking at transcripts and watching video
> streams (thanks to Ben and the Berkman Center team!),
> I obviously see the value of a better system of remote
> participation. Or rather: of remote *participation*
> instead of *watching*.

  RealAudio is a poor choice for remote participation
at ICANN meetings or for that matter any other kind of
large scale meetings.  A better choice would be Internet
Video Conferencing.  ComDex uses this all the time.


>
>
> However, the proposal that the in-person participants take
> part in the meeting as remote participants seems to take
> away all the advantages of physical meetings; why should
> there be physical meetings after all? The local community

  I think as do our members, that physical meetings are a good
thing.  But remote participants should not be relegated to second
class status, as obviously been the case either.  And there is no
need for remote participants to be so relegated.

>
> may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but
> I take it that face-to-face communication generally still
> gets more work done.

  Most of the work done for ICANN meetings is done before
the meeting even takes place...

>
>
> The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise
> ratio.  If the online GA can do everything the in-person
> GA can, why doesn't it get work done? (Yes, I am a member,
> so yes, this is also self-criticism.) It would be a
> disappointment if we extended this to the physical meetings.
> There is obviously a difference in that the meetings, if
> only remote participation was allowed, would be heavily
> moderated. But I remain skeptical whether this is sufficient.

 Moderated yes.  Heavily moderated, no.

>
>
> Instead of turning the physical meetings into a moderated
> online chat, we should focus on the improvement of the GA list.

  Improvement is a relative thing.  But I agree that improvement
for the GA list is a good idea.  However this has been tried before
and ended up in bickering instead of progress.

>
> (And the unmoderated chat is totally discouraging; have a
> look at the log files if you have any doubts.)

  Yes this is true.  I know I participated.  Terrible.

>
>
> > I think it is still a pipedream, but the principle is valid and the
> > technology is moving fast.
> > The real problem is us ourselves: can we cope with the sensory overload?
> Agree.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> _______________________________________________________
>   ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html