Dear Paul and Colleagues,
I have been involved in a number of internet networks – and I believe over 100 people will not communicate effectively. In IUCN WHSG we have regional groupings with a common website as does WDA. And usually a core group use the network and this is driven by need and familiarity, freedom to speak and to do so without subsequently being misquoted or attacked – so needs to be secure and have rules and the network also needs a moderator! I am not a face book or twitter user though so perhaps out of touch…..I would design this network on regional nodes with common political and cultural groupings where feasible, with some global actors engaged on all of them. Using a basecamp like platform is
excellent for moderation (I imagine that your handling of this conference has been a headache keeping track – basecamp sorts this) and also storing documents in one place is highly recommended. Especially if they are vetted. Otherwise website designers…..?
I also feel that the existence of a research grouping (GPRA) already established is a good start and should be left to evolve and function; their discussions outputs can feed into a moderated internet process controlled by OIE FAO and regional bodies such as AU IBAR etc. This provides a connection between researchers and disease policy, control groupings and, in this case, eradicators! I know Jeff responded at the beginning of this moderated session but it probably still needs debate.
Sincerely,
Richard.