Re: [technology taskforce] [Atlas-ii-participants] Well done => not so well apparently
On 01/07/2014 15:58, Garth Bruen wrote:
First, remote participation is not anywhere near the level it should be. Our members even in the U.S complain about the quality and accessibility. Then there is the whole issue of disabled access which is a disgrace. If remote participation was truly effective, few people would even have to attend the meetings in person. There were many proposals and discussions around improving remote participation, some extracted from the Netmundial meeting. I have been discussing a better type of overall participation with some of my colleagues in At-Large and hope to have a draft for leadership to review soon.
What could be done at improving remote participation? Our meetings now have full video and are much more interactive than they used to be. What else should we do to improve the experience? Kind regards, Olivier
Thanks for bringing this up. @Olivier just to be sure, are we talking about ICANN meeting remote participation or ATLAS meeting remote participation? I am asking this in order to put your statement in context, because there are quite a number of sessions that had no video feed in the last ICANN 50. While I agree that video may just be another bottleneck for less bandwidth privileged participants I think it is the only way to follow a non-remote conscious session. In a situation where video is not possible, I think the sessions then needs to become remote aware; the bulk of the work needs to be done on the session leaders. They need to ensure that participants at the face2face are communicating with remote users in mind. Basic Ethics like mentioning names and affiliation needs to be strictly adhered to (very useful for audio only users). Remote language translation options also needs to improve; there may be need to do a one pager guideline on how to use the AC and the audio translation in sync. However it should also be noted that video in AC at times does not sync with the audio only feeds. Cheers! PS: was a remote participant for ICANN 50 sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 Jul 2014 12:22, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 01/07/2014 15:58, Garth Bruen wrote:
First, remote participation is not anywhere near the level it should be. Our members even in the U.S complain about the quality and accessibility. Then there is the whole issue of disabled access which is a disgrace. If remote participation was truly effective, few people would even have to attend the meetings in person. There were many proposals and discussions around improving remote participation, some extracted from the Netmundial meeting. I have been discussing a better type of overall participation with some of my colleagues in At-Large and hope to have a draft for leadership to review soon.
What could be done at improving remote participation? Our meetings now have full video and are much more interactive than they used to be. What else should we do to improve the experience? Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ ttf mailing list ttf@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ttf
participants (2)
-
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji