While not arguing any contrary position, I would point out that F2F 
interaction is qualitatively different from remote communication (and 
one may have radically different impressions of another person in person 
compared to text-only or voice-only or even videoconferencing).  To the 
extent that the human relationships between us underlying the working 
relationships are important for working together effectively, it's 
useful to have some F2F in the process as a routine matter.

That said, mediated interaction of course has huge potentials for 
efficiency.  And I don't think anyone has suggested dropping F2F 
altogether, but if anyone did I would think that would be too extreme.  
However, finding the right balance would be a good thing.

It may help to frame F2F as importantly embodying a social purpose as 
well as a working purpose (but a social purpose that in fact supports 
the working purpose -- addressing values, mission, etc.).  That may lead 
to evaluation of when it can be most useful versus when it becomes ore 
superfluous.

And I acknowledge that my only participation in the last several years 
(sporadic as it has been, at best) has been text-only!  But it was 
founded on a solid amount of F2F at the outset a decade ago.  I do think 
that some miscommunication in the remote mode could be avoided with some 
F2F up front to get clear on motives, values, personalities ... a basic 
level of trust.

Dan


On 10/24/16 11:29 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I would like to take the issues raised by Milton one level further.
>
> The core revolution of the internet has been to allow us to work more
> easily and effectively across time and space. That includes
> conducting meetings, holding discussions and building structures
> (committees, transparent data repositories). The existence of the
> Internet is the reason for ICANN and should be reason enough for
> ICANN to be on the forefront of exploring and using this expanded
> social process space.
>
> Milton is asking “what is the value added?” and “at what individual
> and collective cost?”. I may grumble about a 2am conference call, but
> that is better than 4-5-6 days of travel and face-to-face time to
> achieve little more than what a couple of middle-of-the-night
> conference calls can achieve.
>
> Also, there is a subtle division of access here. ICANN’s contract and
> commercial stakeholders are able to, in most instances, to view the
> intersessional as their ongoing “business as usual”, factored into
> their time and budgets. For the other stakeholder groups (us in
> particular) the carrot of selective free travel does not offset the
> considerable costs in terms of time away from our individual
> “business as usual”, nor does it assure that we can attain sufficient
> presence to not be swamped by the efforts of the contracted and
> commercial parties.
>
> I join Milton in thinking we need both a rethink and a reset here.
>
> Sam Lanfranco, NCSG/NPOC/csih
>