RE: [alac] A Public Meeting in Advance of Mar del Plata / was "Opening our meetings"
I am in favour of opening up our meetings in Mar del Plata as much as possible. As a matter of fact, I was a little puzzled myself when I saw the initially proposed agenda, with closed sessions outnumbering the open ones. The problem, the way I see it, is only logistic: while for an internal meeting we can live with a room for 15 and minimum equipment, that would not be sufficient for an open meeting. As for the teleconference before the meeting, I have mixed feelings. If the purpose is to present the agenda and to gather feedback, a teleconference might be an overkill. If, on the other hand, what we are aiming for is to set a precedent for having open teleconferences for discussion, and therefore interaction among all participants, I would prefer to discuss the implications of this choice before making a decision. The problem is, IMHO, scaleability. I am sympathetic to John's experience as Mayor of his small village. However, I could hardly see the same approach working for Los Angeles. We are addressing an AtLarge community that now happens to count a number of active members that are even outnumbered by the inhabitants of John's village, but we cannot think that the size will remain that small. As a matter of fact, if we do believe that the numbers will remain on this order of magnitude, we might as well close the shop right now and go home. In other words, we need to design and propose solutions that work for Los Angeles, not for a small village. What will be the consequence of starting by having open teleconferences now, and later having to discontinue the practice because the solution does not scale? Just my 2 cents. Roberto GAETANO ALAC ICANN BoD Liaison _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
|