[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: [council] webcasting for DNSO/Santiago Meeting
Absolutely agreed, Roberto, that recording of parallel sessions makes good
sense and should be attempted. In fact, Berkman Center staff attempted to
do so in Berlin. However, because the DNSO Constituency groups were in
rooms that lacked sound reinforcement systems (and we certainly hadn't
brought mics for seven parallel sessions!, not to mention that we didn't
actually have enough recorders for all the rooms because it had been our
understanding that the constituency groups would record their own meetings),
we had no satisfactory way of doing the recording. Thus, the majority of
our tapes were so bad as to be worthless, while you'll find the others
posted on <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive>.
As much as I appreciate that the DNSO lacks resources with which to arrange
a webcast, the thought of *not* having the GA's session available to remote
participants strikes an odd chord with me. What would some on this list
think if ICANN took the same action in order to shave a significant cost off
its Santiago Open Meeting? (Cutting the Open Meeting webcast and remote
participation was in fact suggested at one point to save money, but ICANN
resolved not to do so, apparently putting their money where their mouth is
in making a priority out of openness as embodied in remote participation.)
Maybe that cut would be OK with those on this list -- it'd certainly be
understandable given ICANN's tight financial situation -- but I must say
that I'd personally be concerned if remote participation in Open Meetings
were no longer possible. And, given the importance of the issues to be
discussed by the DNSO GA, I'd personally tend to make remote participation a
priority there too.
(I should note that I speak here only for myself as myself, not as an
employee of the Berkman Center and not in my capacity as tech coordinator
for the ICANN-sponsored portions of the Santiago Open Meeting.)
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > it would be quite inexpensive for the meeting to be video
> > taped and the tape
> > fed into an archive.
> Can we have this excellent suggestion be put into practice?
> I think that, no matter what the other means, if any, of outreach will be
> put in place, a tape of the meeting should be made.
> Don't forget also that there may be parallel sessions. Particularly
> to me has been in the past (when I could attend meetings >;( ) that the
> was always at the same time with the constituencies or other important
> session, and I have it always missed. It would be nice to be able to go
> the tape now.
> P.S. maybe the tape can be sold to finance the meeting ;>)
> (just kidding)