<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] remote participation
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 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
Good question. Given that this is a global internet body, one might well
ask.
> may be one aspect (which I obviously cannot judge), but
> I take it that face-to-face communication generally still
> gets more work done.
>
It may make sense for the BOARD to be f2f, but that doesn't mean that rich
supplicants should have an edge over less wealthy ones.
> The real problem is the GA list and its bad signal-noise
> ratio. If the online GA can do everything the in-person
I respectfully disagree. An even larger problem is that repeat f2f
players -- those who are paid to attend sessions as lobbyists, primarily
-- have a huge edge.
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's cool here.<--
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|