For years ICANN has webcasted its public forums and board meetings, every now and then adding other meetings to the list. I now hear some within the civil society (whatever that means) suggesting that the IGF should use webcasting and similar technologies to allow remote participation, especially for those not being able to attend in person because they cannot afford a travel to Geneva, Greece, etc. We are being told this is a step towards making the process more inclusive.
While this stems from a good intention, it is looks like a bad good idea. I tried to follow some ICANN meetings through these webcasts, only to come out frustrated. Even with a good broadband connection, the quality is rather poor. One can stand the bad video, frozen images and 5 minute delay for only a few minutes. Just imagine what that would look like and how much it would cost using a 9600 bps dial-up connection in Africa. Add to that that communications is really one way. Feeding back your opinion to the meeting is close to impossible, if only for the delay, which would prevent from replying in time.
So, instead of spending lots of money on webcasting, the IGF would do better to spend it on sponsoring the attendance of those delegates who can not afford to travel. Sure, webcasting is sexy, but only for those who can watch it with comfort. However, nothing can replace face-to-face meetings. At WSIS, IGF or ICANN, many of the important conversations are happening in the corridors or at the bar. They are not webcasted. If you want to influence a process, you need to be there.
Pages:
Recent Comments