Dear All Some somewhat disjointed thoughts, not in an order of priority. I hope it is what the moderator is looking for. 1) Information exchange should be at the heart of any network, a way to share results and information easily and build up a knowledge bank that is accessible to everyone. A monthly bulletin of new publications received would be helpful. I know it will take time to do that (and therefore money) but I think it is key. I remember the ILCA library service from when I worked in Zimbabwe and it was a very important resource. 2) We should seek a multi-disciplinary network that combines laboratory, vaccine production, disease control, epidemiology, sociology, economics and gender specialists. This is not easy as we all speak different "languages" and we will all have to concede that each speciality is as important as the others, but all will be vital to achieving control and then eradication. 3) The network should actively seek and promote public/private/producer partnerships so all of those should be included. Each have a role in the work. 4) The network could function through a mixture of platforms. The internet is clearly key and a Wiki system as used by EuFMD might be an initial way to start. Facebook has been mentioned but personally I don't use it and find it not very useful for the community activities I am involved in, their web pages are more flexible and more easily followed. A lot of comments get made on Facebook but can become difficult to follow. Perhaps a blog site might be better? Whatever is used, it would be easiest if it is set up to e-mail notify a subscriber list when new additions are made. 5) But a printed bulletin that summarises that information will also be necessary. Not everyone has reliable access to the internet. Something monthly perhaps or at least quarterly, similar to the EMPRES bulletin? Regards Nick Honhold On 06/03/2014 14:17, Paul Rossiter wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > We are approaching the conclusion of the e-conference but I have > received only one or two contributions for you to session 5. Perhaps > the needs of PPR in the laboratory and field have taken over from > working with the disease on the internet. Seriously though, we do need > you inputs to tell us what kind of network you want to have and use. > Please read though my introduction to session 5 and if possible > comment on some of the ideas that I floated there, and in the more > general introduction to the conference and session 1. > There are other aspects of PPR research and innovation that we might > approach through the network. Could it be a forum where we > develop some frameworks and guidelines for the epidemiological > information urgently required to really start progressive > control? Could we spell out the types and amounts of epidemiological > information that are needed? Might the network be the place to publish > and discuss the results of this work? Could the network commission > some studies? Might the network be a suitable place to publish > "scientific" papers, peer-reviewed or not? Could the network become > THE global database for PPR? > Please send us your comments. I will not be (greatly) offended by > what you may say about my ideas and we would prefer to hear more of > your own thoughts and innovative thinking - and there has been some > in the conference. > Perhaps one day, our time spent working collectively on PPR on the > "Net" might rank as highly as time spent in the lab, office or field. > Kind regards, > Moderator. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link: > https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1