<HTML><HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> I like Roland's suggestion of archiving the meetings on Google Video. That would be a good way to minimize our bandwidth costs. The only minor downside that I see is it requires Mac OS X 10.3 or higher or Windows 2000 or later (Windows 98 is not supported) and there is a few days delay before they put it up.</FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> It appears that Google does not host live broadcasts. So if we want to do live webcasts, then we have to find an additional method. Before we do a whole lot of work (or spend money on this) I would like to know if there is real interest. That is, will anyone actually watch? I would not expect many watchers. I would think that 5 or 10 watchers would justify it. This TownTalk discussion is helpful in gauging interest. </FONT><br></div>
<div> </div>
<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> *** Please post if you think you might watch a live Webcast of the town meetings. ***</FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> If we are serious about two-way communications, that is, getting home viewers a chance to comment, we would do well to consider web meeting software. Such software can include video, audio, whiteboards, document sharing, real-time polls, annotations, chat, question manager, and even seating charts.</FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> Could be a real step forward for democracy.</FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> Rob</FONT><br></div>
<div><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=3> </FONT><br></div>
</body></html>