Re: [council] NOT an ATRT2 comment -- but related -- remote participation through virtual worlds

[Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

(and my husband agrees....!)


On 11 December 2013 14:28, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Love this idea.  Who was it on Friday that said: "I never thought
> getting involved in the Internet would mean spending so much time in
> airplanes?"  That quote has stuck with me ever since (and really resonates
> with my wife!)
>
> Thank you--
>
>  J.
>
>  Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:42, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  i agree, David.
>
>  one of the best "crazy ideas" i ever saw at ICANN was Brett Faucett's
> project to set up an ICANN space in Second Life.  he had a beautiful
> "island" built that had all the typical facilities that we'd see at an
> ICANN meeting.  a great hall where we could all meet together, a bunch of
> smaller rooms for mid-size meetings, even smaller rooms for working
> meetings.  and, of course, a bar.
>
>  sadly, he got shot out of the saddle (i can't remember why) and the
> project never really took off.
>
>  i would like to formally thank Brett for doing all that work.  i'd also
> like to publicly encourage him, or anybody else, to consider trying again.
>  our new management team is all about 21st century social-media and
> outreach.  well, virtual worlds is a big part of the 21st century internet,
> and they are where a lot of the people we're trying to reach hang out.  no…
>  please don't re-invent virtual worlds, or pay millions of dollars to build
> one.  but consider it.  especially consider them for doing work.  look to
> the academic community for experience and ideas.
>
>  wouldn't it be nice if:
>
>  -- we could have a "face to face" meeting at the drop of a hat, over
> this Internet thing which seems to be catching on?  without having to
> expend thousands of pounds of carbon, wasting endless hours sitting in
> uncomfortable places?
>
>  -- we had superb collaboration tools available
>
>  -- there was a menu of facilities available, ranging in size,
> capability, "structured-ness", etc.?
>
>  -- it was fun to go there and just hang out, meet new people, catch up
> with friends, organize ad-hoc groups, keep up on the news, etc.?
>
>  just sayin.
>
>  mikey
>
>
>  On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:53 PM, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  A great suggestion.
> I know I'd be vastly more inclined to participate in F2F WG meetings if it
> meant a trip to Singapore (4 hours and same time zone) rather than LA or
> Washington (>24 hours travel time each way)
>
>  David
>
>  On 11 Dec 2013, at 6:06 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   I know it pretty late to suggest a new comment and I will understand if
> it is too late but the following suggestion was made regarding “*13.1 on
> face to face meetings during GNSO PDPs*”:
>  Each ICANN engagement center should have facilities to support
> videoconferencing and be able to support WG size teams.
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
>