Re: [ga] Listen-only ports

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

An augment like this is why ICANN laughs at this WG and the people involved
in it. The obvious value of codifying a record of the meeting in MP3/MPEG is
self-supporting and clearly better than ANY form of minutes transcription if
you are not blind or deaf since it gives you the actual pictures and sound
of what happened.

The issue of whether the meeting process can support OOB or later review is
a process for the meeting planners to define...

Todd Glassey
Streaming Media Manager/KZSU-Stanford



----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
To: <andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Listen-only ports


> Andy Gardner wrote:
>
> >
> >"Attendance" is realtime. If one is due to "attend" a board meeting and
an
> >observer, but misses the bus, turns up late and only gets to listen to a
> >recording of the meeting, that person would be marked as "not in
> >attendance" in the minutes.
> >
> >"Attendance" is being there. "Participating" is being there and having
your
> >voice heard.
> >
> >We may not have the right to "participate", but we have the right to
> >"attend". Listening to MP3 after the event is not "attending" and is not
> >even an unsubstancial equivalent.
> >
>
>
> I have mixed feelings about the matter.
>
> While Andy is right on the difference between "attending" and
> "participating", the concept of "attending" in itself has to be stretched
if
> attendence is not "in person", but via electronic media.
> To me "attending" means "to be there in time and space". I am attending a
> football match if I go to the stadium, not if I watch it on television. In
> the example of the person missing the bus, if he/she was sick and saw the
> live broadcast of the event in real time on television, he/she would be
> marked as absent anyhow.
>
> But this is theory. In practice, as Bret is pointing out, there is a
> cost-benefit analysis that we should carry on before making a decision.
> For me, but this is just my personal view, I don't see any advantage in
> "listening to" (because this is the real thing that is going to happen, in
> either case) in real-time over the phone versus listening to the recording
> over the web, given the fact that I have no way to react in real-time,
like
> for instance sending comments via e-mail. In other words, for me it makes
> little difference to listen to the event when it happens or a couple of
> hours later.
> Of course, I might be biased from the fact that there is a substantial
cost
> from my part in making a phone call to the US from over here.
> Maybe my mileage would vary if I had a substantially lower cost, like for
> instance if I were in North America, or the number to call would be in
> Austria, or if somebody would pay for the call. But since none of these
> conditions are likely to apply, I stay with the current system.
>
> It is a little bit like watching sports events on television: I can live
> with the recorded tape, as long as I don't know the results in advance.
> Now this might bring up another subject, but let's leave it there for the
> time being...
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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