IAWTV Updates: Board Members Step Down, Streamys Future Up In the Air


Major changes are afoot for the International Academy of Web TV’s leadership, as five members of the board of directors — Brady Brim-Deforest, Josh Cohen, Marc Hustvedt, Mo Koyfman and Jamison Tilsner — have resigned from from the board. This means that four of the five Tubefilter principals on the board have now exited; Drew Baldwin is the only one who remains. A special election will be held in July to fill the five open seats.

Each member’s decision to step down, according to executive director Elisabeth Flack, was made for personal reasons. As an example, Koyfman, who’s a principal at investment group Spark Capital, said via email that he joined the board “as a favor to [Chairman of the Board Michael Wayne] initially as a friend, and stepped down simply because I was too busy with other board commitments — both VC-related and charity. Had nothing to do with anything else.”

Brim-Deforest, with whom I spoke via phone, said that he decided to resign because, “My personal intention was never to control something. I wanted to build it to pass it along to the community as a whole.” And after the community’s um, passionate response following this year’s poorly received Streamy Awards ceremony, Brim-Deforest felt comfortable stepping down. “I felt that the community was galvanized to participate,” he said. “Sometimes a little bit of controversy goes a long way towards getting people involved.”

The reason that five members of Tubefilter were board members to begin with, Brim-Deforest said, was “more of a convenience — an organization takes a long time to build and to scale. It was just about being custodians for the IAWTV and ensuring that it got off the ground.” In addition, at the time of the board’s formation Tubefilter had not yet acquired Tilzy.tv, which Cohen and Tilsner founded.

Tilsner, according to Brim-Deforest, is no longer with Tubefilter, having recently taken a position at Kantar Video. He remains an active member of the IAWTV, however, as do the other board members who have resigned. The board has created a non-voting Director Emertius seat to be held on a rotating basis by the IAWTV co-founders, which will first be held by Josh Cohen. “We as a board discussed ways of recognizing the contributions of the founders. [The Emeritus position] was one idea that was thrown out and so we adopted it,” Wayne said via phone.

Two meetings with the membership — one in Los Angeles, one in New York — took place this week to lay out the election schedule for the new board seats, which goes as follows:

Jul 1: Call for nominations
Jul 6: Nominations tallied
Jul 7-10: Nominees accept or decline the nominations
Jul 12: Candidates announced
Jul 12-18: Campaign week
Jul 19-23: First round of voting by the membership, verified by two volunteer election inspectors
Jul 26-30: Potential second round of voting, depending on number of candidates

The new board members would thus be elected in time for the next board meeting, scheduled for August 24.

Another issue addressed during these member meetings was the formation of committees dedicated to focusing on key issues for the organization. One of these, the awards committee, will be specifically in charge of coming up with a recommendation to the board as to what the IAWTV’s relationship with the Streamy Awards — or any awards show — should be in the future.

While initially the decision about that relationship was going to be made by Wayne and Brim-Deforest, as discussed at the May 12 Los Angeles member meeting, Wayne said that following said meeting, they decided to let the awards committee generate the first proposal. “The membership needed to figure out what it wanted from the awards and what was best way to represent the organization,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a top-down decision, it should be a bottom-up decision.”

13 people so far have signed up for the awards committee, including Streamys co-producer Drew Baldwin. According to Brim-Deforest it would be up to the committee to determine how to handle any potential conflicts of interest that might result from Baldwin’s participation, and IAWTV executive director Elisabeth Flack said she didn’t think that Baldwin’s presence would prove a problem. “That’s up to the committee itself,” she said via phone, “but what I’ve seen in Drew Baldwin is passion and dedication to the IAWTV overall, and a desire to really work on this with the committee and with the membership.” Baldwin did not respond to immediate requests for comment, but I’ll update this story accordingly should he do so later.

I attended last night’s Los Angeles members meeting, and while the turnout was much lower than the May 12 meeting (due no doubt in part to conflicting with Game 7 of the NBA Finals), Flack presented a clear agenda to an engaged room. (There were also remote viewing options available to those unable to attend.) Flack was positive about the results when we spoke this morning, saying that “A lot of positive responses — lots of members want to help and want to make recommendations. What’s important is that as a community we continue to move forward together.”

Disclosure: I am a co-founder of the IAWTV — the only one who is/was not a Tubefilter principal — and thus technically eligible for the Director Emertius position. However, I am not a member of the board, was not consulted about the seat’s creation, and have no official authority within the IAWTV.

Related GigaOm Pro Content (subscription required): A Guide To Online Video Monetization Options



@Bernie Su… You have made little sense of obvious nonsense. Your reasoning sounds a lot like Machiavellian political science. My question to Su is if that philosophical influence comes from Niccolo or Aldous? Or is it just Hollywood-nightlife-mumble-jumble being regurgitated? I am a creator going back 20 years and I have absolutely no interest in this web academy BS. To me, if you are going to create a so-called ‘artist clique’ then it should be invitation only. I recall they advertised open admission at one point, and that’s the point people are bringing up. So if you win an electrified fettuccine award, then you are invited in and are allowed to vote on future fettuccine competitions. Isn’t that how the TV and Film Academies work? I swear, this whole spectacle is like watching a performance of Lord of the Flies. It’s no wonder why TV and film pros are scoffing.

And why does this Liz Miller think she should be sitting down on any board within an artist’s academy. That would be like John Tesh or Lara Spencer sitting on the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. I think when this ‘insular blogger group’ eventually views themselves in a mirror, they’ll finally get down to work and build something with integrity. (And I don’t mean any offense to anyone. I love fettuccine, especially with a white sauce. I’m just sharing an observation.)

Liz Shannon Miller

Todd, you’re entitled to your opinion but I have two corrections for you. The academy is not just only for artists, but for the entire web video industry. And I do NOT sit on the IAWTV board, as clearly stated in my disclosure at the end of the article.


Well Todd, I can say that it’s neither, “Ends Justify the Means” is generally classified as the Machiavellian term. I instead was advocating the judiciary process of the “The Means Justify the Ends”.

I don’t believe the IAWTV advertised open admission, just open application, they encouraged everyone to apply but didn’t say they’d all get in. If my memory is wrong in this then so be it, and then yes fault to them.

Also the IAWTV was never just an ‘artist clique’. From day one you had content creators, agents, executives, PR, and press, so it was going to be a collective of industries from now to as long as it exists.

Anyway Todd, it looks like your critiques of the functions of the IAWTV are in it’s awarding purposes, in which case I’m totally with you of not needing to be a part of the “academy BS”.

As I told an IAWTV rejected friend of mine back when all the IAWTV was doing was watching and voting on shows, “You just saved yourself $90 and 20 hours of watching mostly bad shows.”


Hi everyone,

Thanks Liz for hosting this discussion. Bernie, I think there are bound to be some conflicts and questions in any process where subjective decision making and strategic planning bump into each other. For the IAWTV to be viable and representative it will have to expand beyond the L.A. and New York enclaves. Those are certainly hubs of media, new, old and otherwise. But one of the problems, IMHO, that was brought to light by the Streamy show was the very tendency to emulate the models established by the existing industry in L.A. and New York. Attempting to recreate the same gradually failing business and creative model in miniature speaks to a lack or perhaps even a failure of vision.

There is a real and growing problem from where I sit. The true creative force and potency of the web series is being diluted before it can become established. The IAWTV wants very badly to be a professional association and has, if you’ll all forgive me, come off as a bad professional association. This is indicative of the fracture within the burgeoning field of web video. On the one hand you have the cross over of old media players and bless the Illeana Douglases and Justine Batemans of the world for having the brass to make the leap into uncharted waters. But they also muddy those waters to a degree.

But on the other hand, how is the upstart, zero dollar genius from the fly-over states going to find a place among their peers when the bar is skewed by the preponderance of established players and those who are proximate to that establishment? How does a cadre of L.A. types fairly adjudicate the worthiness of people from smaller markets? Hell, the greater L.A. metropolitan area comprises a population of more than a third of the entire population of Canada and about the same as the entire province of Ontario. Seems to me that the power of the web is that one should not have to relocate to old media centres to have a fair shot.

Granted the IAWTV is in the awkward growing stage but it is never too early to stem the easy slide into old mistakes. A small group of folks that mostly know one another are simply not representative of the new media. Period. It will take time to become established and to find the best path but it seems quite obvious that there needs to be some much more rapid change and far greater transparency. The conceit of thinking that sitting on the collected hands and opening the membership window twice a year is sufficient, I find that baffling. Information moves at the speed of light. The technology we all work with turns over faster than that.

So… not to be a whiner, might I suggest to whomever might have the ear of the inner sanctum, an ongoing membership process with monthly yea or nay determinations and a tiered membership structure. The fifteen year old girl in Des Moines doesn’t have the cash, equipment, infrastructure or experience to compete with Joss Whedon on an even footing and she shouldn’t have to. But she may well turn out to be the next Joss Whedon. The purpose of an organization like IAWTV should not be solely to congratulate those who have Mr. Ruiz in their iPhone. To have a function and purpose, the IAWTV needs to be building an industry and nurturing newcomers. It is far too early in the game to be slapping backs and performing the victory lap.

You need gates not walls. I propose a membership system that offers advantages to the beginners and vloggers, an associate membership that can be had for a minimal fee. This would be a non-voting membership that builds the base from which future full membership can be drawn. Offer education, discounts and access to this group which could easily number in the thousands. That generates a real revenue stream, an audience and popular power base to a new organization. Next you would have the basic level memberships for the low budget/apprentice class creators followed by the professional and branded class memberships. Separate from those creative classes you would have the industry side for the agents, advertisers and associated professionals.

Not everyone has access to a chewing gum, or hygiene product rep to pitch their series to. Not everyone is located in the centre of industry and frankly, the centre will not hold. If the IAWTV is to succeed and survive it needs to model itself more on the flat hierarchy that makes the web such a compelling medium. We already have a faltering movie and TV industry, we don’t need another smaller version of same.



Hey Lindsay,

I think your associate membership proposal is very intriguing, I think it’s something that the academy should consider eventually (once it grows and figures itself out). I also don’t feel the infrastructure currently exists in the IAWTV to handle varying classes of membership yet.

Btw, Liz’s post on the academy figuring out what it wants to be


is spot on. They/we/us are all trying to figure it out. As much as technology moves at blinding speeds, people on the other hand do not. The IAWTV isn’t run by technology, it’s run by people and people move slow. People have families, lives, jobs, etc. The IAWTV has members (re: unpaid), not employees, so unfortunately it moves a lot slower than the technology it identifies with.

I’m totally with you on transparency, I want it to happen too, which is why I’m trying to be vocal on this threads in an unofficial voice. But all the “changes” everyone is calling for, I want them to be executed WELL even if it’s at the expense of being fast.

As for the IAWTV itself. The original sole purpose of the IAWTV (formerly on its site) was to determine the Streamy Nominees and winners. (just voting, and not planning the actual awards show) It didn’t have all the ‘we’re gonna better the industry’ stuff until very recently. It was just ‘we are here to determine the winners and nominees of the Streamy Awards’ done.

So if the sole purpose of the IAWTV was to determine the Streamy winners and nominees, well it has successfully done it two years in a row. The IAWTV achieved its original purpose. It’s only now as the academy evolves into becoming a nurturing body for the industry that it will take time to develop and figure out what it’s going to be.

Also looking at the Illeana’s and Whedon’s I think it’s important to remember that they weren’t always the star/influencer they are now, at one point or another they had to learn and grow into the creators they are today. They worked hard to become what they are. So if the next great online storyteller is out there in the fly over states, it’s the hard work, talent, drive, and luck (academy or not) that will let that person shine.

Come to think of it, even in its original incarnation, the IAWTV does have a success/nurture/discovery story in Chris Preksta (from and still residing in Pittsburgh, PA). He did Captain Blasto, the IAWTV voted it into the Streamys, he got two nominations, he flew out and met a bunch of people during the first Streamys, he did another show Mercury Men, and now he’s part of ICM with your aforementioned Ruiz. Obviously his journey is continuing, but I’d say so far so good for him. – and a great bit of talent discovered for a young filmmaker in Pittsburgh.


Again thanks Bernie. There’s a hard line to walk between being ardent and being disrespectful, I hope I’m tending toward the former. I do understand that there are many steps to take, unfortunately two of the most vital factors will be speed and transparency. I sit on the board of a small theatre company so I can certainly understand that the pace at which people want change is unlikely to be met at the pace that others can deliver change. And I also don’t mean to diss George Ruiz as I can only imagine the battles he’s had to fight to win representation for his clients.

I think there is a lot of value to be had from an organization like the IAWTV. I’d like to see an advocacy and educational body emerge from the ruffling of feathers that is taking place. I think there is a lot of ambition within and around the association and all I can do is cheerlead from the sidelines. come autumn, I’ll look toward applications and see if I can’t become one of the bitter denied.



Hey Lindsay,

I don’t know why this site wont let me direct reply to your post below, but I’m replying here..

It definitely is a hard line to walk between being ardent and disrespectful, especially when the entire conversation is happening via ‘comment posts’ with little to no inflection.

I have found everything said here to be well thought out POVs and did not take any of it to be whiny or disrespectful. We are here having a discussion on a topic that we all clearly care about, whether we agree or disagree is a part of the process. Personally I’m just presenting a POV from a content creator who is in the IAWTV that has had many criticisms of the organization (and still does), but I know we are working on them as a group.

Lindsay, it’s pretty clear to me that you’d be a passionate member of the IAWTV, so naturally I’ll be rooting for you.


this was in reply to

From Lindsay:

Again thanks Bernie. There’s a hard line to walk between being ardent and being disrespectful, I hope I’m tending toward the former. I do understand that there are many steps to take, unfortunately two of the most vital factors will be speed and transparency. I sit on the board of a small theatre company so I can certainly understand that the pace at which people want change is unlikely to be met at the pace that others can deliver change. And I also don’t mean to diss George Ruiz as I can only imagine the battles he’s had to fight to win representation for his clients.

I think there is a lot of value to be had from an organization like the IAWTV. I’d like to see an advocacy and educational body emerge from the ruffling of feathers that is taking place. I think there is a lot of ambition within and around the association and all I can do is cheerlead from the sidelines. come autumn, I’ll look toward applications and see if I can’t become one of the bitter denied.


From Bernie:

“From what I gathered from what the previous membership committee spoke out about, they all took the application process very seriously and were looking for the best people across all fields that would represent all facets of web television, this included network executives, press, pr, agents, advertising agencies, as well as content creators.”

This statement implies that the people who were rejected were not the best people to represent the areas given.

Bernie, have you looked at the list of people who were actually rejected? There were in fact some highly qualified individuals and until we fully understand the basis on which they were rejected we cannot fully understand what went wrong here.

And, the reality is that something went tragically wrong here. At the very least this entire process has been divisive and created serious splits within the community. It should perhaps cause us to reflect on if and why we need such an “exclusive insider body” in the first place. If we cannot treat each other with respect then who will? What we need is a body that draws us together as a community, not one that creates wedges, cliques and insider groups. If the IAWTV cannot achieve that then it is doing much more harm than it is doing good.

Bernie Su


I have not looked at the full list of the people that were rejected, but I do know of a good half dozen or so rejectees personally. These 6-7 members are pretty much all “content creators”, personal friends, and were clearly all “disappointed” in their rejections, but I did my best to look at the whole picture. Do I think these 6-7 would be great members? Yeah, but it’s not my call and it shouldn’t be.

I remember early on when people were applying, there was this running joke that EVERYONE was gonna get accepted, which in the grand scheme of things would have probably been pretty lame if that had happened.

The Membership committee, that I saw, consisted of 9/10 different members from all facets of the community. (agents, creators, distributors, etc) So as much as you and I could say that X person was part of a team that did a great show that did Y amounts of views with all sorts of webTV press coverage, you have the human element POV of another party who’s view points have many variables.

Is this show really “great”? (cause that’s subjective to everyone {or if the reviewer has even HEARD of the show}), and how great was that show? (again subjective)
Does Y views mean anything? Is 100,000 views a lot? is 1 Million? Does coverage on all the Webseries sites mean anything?
Does all that equate a good member (intangibles)

– I heard of some applications being marked down because they didn’t take the time to spell check their apps, taking that to mean that they applicant didn’t take the application seriously. – So no matter how qualified this applicant is, if they don’t really care should they be allowed in? (and remember every application was reviewed by multiple members of the committee… not just one guy going yes/no and we’re done)

I’m not trying to single out the rejectees as having inferior/unwatched shows, I’m just saying that there are a lot of variables and that it’s all subjective. Any applications process is subjective, any judging process is subjective. It’s not like there was a set benchmark for entry, i.e. you need to be a part of 2 shows, that have 1 Million total views, etc. –

MM, Your own statement is full of your own personal opinions of who is ‘highly qualified’ and what ‘qualified’ means…

“There were in fact some highly qualified individuals and until we fully understand the basis on which they were rejected we cannot fully understand what went wrong here.”

Also, does geography and or profession play into it. If there’s 220 members, maybe you want a strong diversity across all jobs, across all industries, across the world (re: international). So if 80 content creators from LA all applied last year (not counting the many already in the academy), and you want your reps from NYC, International etc, you’d have to cut the line off somewhere.

Anyway, my point of it is that, I (my opinion) felt the ‘means justified the ends’ which is a basic judiciary philosophy (i.e. I accept the process of how we get our results, thus I accept our results). The application reviewing process had checks and balances that I felt were sufficient, and thus the results from them are just.

It also feels that with the portion of your statement (above), you’d want the ‘Ends to Justify the Means’ which is a valid moral theory but definitely more utilitarian than judiciary. (I.E. As long as the results are acceptable to you, the process doesn’t matter) – As much as this may feel that I am calling you utilitarian (I am not), I’m really trying to point you to how I accepted the membership process.

Me: 2 Months ago, I didn’t like the results of who was rejected either. But instead of asking why X person was rejected, I instead asked “how did the membership process work?”. The academy was told how the process worked, and thus I now accept the results. – This does not mean that I personally agree with everyone who got in and everyone who didn’t, I’m just very content with the process. – So yes I want the IAWTV to reveal the process to the public.

Were the results perfect? no.

Will they ever be? Probably not. But no applications process is ever perfect.

Personally I feel that there are many parts of the IAWTV that need improvement, so I’m galvanized to help it to improve the space/community. Thus if you feel you want to make changes to the IAWTV, then why don’t you join the academy and propose specific changes?


eric susch

Bernie Su said: “…there was this running joke that EVERYONE was gonna get accepted, which in the grand scheme of things would have probably been pretty lame if that had happened.”

Why? What is the value of rejecting qualified membership? If people are engaged and want to do the hard lifting of building a brand new organization in a brand new industry why lock these people out? To simply be an “exclusive” organization? To what end? So those that got in can feel self-important? How does that help the New Media industry or the IAWTV grow?

I disagree that membership is or should be as subjective as you imply. If you want to build a new organization you need to develop concrete criteria for membership BEFORE the membership drive, otherwise the selection process is based purely on politics and the bias of those on the membership committee. The fact that so many people are still baffled as to why they were rejected (and presumably why others got in) suggests that there were serious problems with the process and that there was never any basic membership policy.

IMO the membership issue is the most important and pressing issue the IAWTV faces right now. If the IAWTV membership itself does not represent a cross section of the actual Web TV industry BEFORE major organizational decisions are voted upon, the IAWTV won’t have any legitimacy with the Web Video community at large. It seems to me that there is a small window available right now where non-members from different perspectives are still engaged to help build this organization. That won’t last especially if the IAWTV goes even further off the rails into a closed/elite organization. At that point the divisions the IAWTV created in the community will harden and the IAWTV will end up simply the LA chapter of the new media club.

Bernie Su said: “Thus if you feel you want to make changes to the IAWTV, then why don’t you join the academy and propose specific changes?”

It’s a bit disingenuous to suggest this when you know full well that membership is now closed. As someone on the inside maybe you should push to open up membership again with a clear policy for who qualifies. I’m sure at that point qualified people will step up, apply, get in, and then propose those specific changes you suggest. Until then those on the outside will simply speak out …until they don’t care anymore and leave the IAWTV behind.


Hi Eric,

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree…

The points of people being baffled about why they got in or why someone else got in ahead of them is again subjective to the individual applicant.

Also if you do have membership be a set criteria, then that becomes a question of what that criteria is, and how that criteria applies across agents, executives, Press, PR, and of course content creators. (going back to the I’ve done X-shows, with Y-Views, and received Z-Recognition). My point is if you are going to set the equation, it’s gonna be a pretty complex one with dozens of sub variables (“what exactly is a view anyway?”),all of which will have subjective POVs.

Anyway, looking at who I know of that are members, if you want a representative cross section of the actual Web TV industry, the IAWTV has it. It’s got a majority body of Content Creators, with pockets of PR, Press, Agents, and Executives.

Also if we’re talking about the fear of making it the LA Chapter of New Media, I think opening up the membership to just anyone would make that fear more a reality. I know 7 applicants that were rejected with different sets of qualifications, all were “baffled” to different levels, all content creators, and all reside and work in Los Angeles.

Finally, re: my suggestion for MM to apply, I meant that for once membership opens up again (which I believe will be soon). I’ve told many people, especially non-creators, who support the web community that they should apply, to help make that “cross section of the actual Web TV industry” be more prevalent in the IAWTV.

The IAWTV has evolved from 10 or so board members calling every shot (with everyone else just watching and voting on shows) to now a full membership body moving collectively with the aim to improve the status quo. The organization is well aware of many of its problems. It just needs time to make changes and improve on them.


Thanks for checking on that. That makes sense but it probably would have been advisable for a few of the TF-5 to step down right away after the merger.

Still, things seem to be headed in a better direction. If we could only resolve the “ownership issue” regarding the “Streamy Awards” we could probably begin to move forward. Certainly no award show that is owned by a private company should be regarded as an acceptable solution given the history and all the factors involved.

Liz Shannon Miller

Yeah, an email went out the day before (I think) with a conference call number as well as a live-streaming link. You might check with Elisabeth Flack if you’re not receiving correspondence.


Hopefully this means any future IAWTV Award show will be truly independent.

Has Tubefilter indicated if it would be willing to “donate” ownership and control of the “Streamy Awards” to the IAWTV. That would be a generous move that would go a long way to creating continuity and providing an independent platform for the future of an IAWTV Award show.

Bernie Su

Hi Lindsay,

As for bringing in a diversified (geographically) membership, I feel that is forthcoming and I hope we add more qualified international members into it as well. As for criteria for membership, I believe that is up to the membership committee to convene and decide on.

From what I gathered from what the previous membership committee spoke out about, they all took the application process very seriously and were looking for the best people across all fields that would represent all facets of web television, this included network executives, press, pr, agents, advertising agencies, as well as content creators.

Either way, I am personally looking forward to welcoming more members into the academy (no I am not part of the membership committee), so I hope new applications are processed soon.



Hi Bernie,

Thanks for your response. I don’t mean to imply that the prior iteration of the IAWTV membership committee did not take their task seriously. In the wake of the Streamy events there was a lot of uproar. One of the issues that came up in a number of threads that I followed was the membership process. Obviously, from this remove, anything I address is merely hearsay, though it is of concern that a negative impression could be left and left unanswered. Hence in my earlier comment the stress on responsiveness from the organization.

It is my hope that the IAWTV thrives and overcomes the growing pains that any young organization goes through. There are and always will be issues. As a content creator in Canada, I am very eager to work with a professional association that can help to navigate the difficulties that face the industry as it develops here. Neither ACTRA (our version of SAG) nor the WGC have been as forward thinking as their American counterparts. This creates a minefield of potential troubles as professional performers and writers will essentially be locked out of new media opportunities barring those funded under old media models, by old media players.

The recent Branded Content Summit here in Toronto was a ray of hope for a lot of the smaller producers. New media is growing rapidly and is increasingly viable but we need to find a collective voice as individually we are too easily shouted down or ignored by our more entrenched and better funded peers. I hope that the IAWTV might be that voice. I shall be following the progress of the organization with great interest.


Bernie Su


Thanks and well said. I am certainly not lumping you into the uproar from the applicants that were rejected from the academy, and I feel most of what I’m about to write is more for everyone else who is wondering about the process, since this is after all a public thread.

I did feel that everyone who applied naturally would feel that they/themselves should get in. It’s a natural feeling for any applicant applying to anything (employment, higher education, academies, whatever)

When I finally provoked the discussion to reveal exactly what the membership application processed entailed, I for one was personally VERY SATISFIED with the process. It was thorough with multiple checks and rounds for approvals/rejections. My feelings are coming from a person that had several friends (one from my own team) get rejected. But knowing the means, I felt the ends were justified. – Personally, I hope the academy will make the process public soon. I think if anything, it’ll just help with transparency.

Either way it’s gonna be tough because not everyone is gonna get in (unless you literally just let everyone in), and naturally not everyone is gonna be happy with the results. I think it’s especially stinging for people in the NY/LA crowds because they all feel that they know several if not many people IN the academy so that “I know a guy” connection should get them in.

Of course if this actually worked for all applicants we’d have an even bigger domination of LA/NYC members let alone a massive contingent of content creators.

Anyway Lindsay, I hope you are planning to apply for membership whenever the academy opens it up again, I’d like the academy to add more quality international members, and I’m sure the membership committee will share that sentiment.

tim street

The whole streamys/IAWTV etc… group of people are total bafoons total jokes
… they are self-important fools who seek to line their own pockets on our backs- I mean they are not fooling anyone and should just pack up and go back to New York… I mean they were in bad taste involving Wayne and Deca (dont get me started with them) and to think they actually had a place in this is preposterous. Why don’t you try taking over live streaming, I hear the people are more passive there… Oh wait- they cant get money out of them… I see go on and remain fools, have some taste I mean after that Streamy DEBACLE… go away already- or throw your hat in the ring and create… Oh I forgot- you have nothing to offer

eric susch

This blurb doesn’t sound like the Tim Street I know at all. And it appeared here on the 25th not the 18th. Something is very fishy about this comment.


Thanks for that update. One area of concern is that of general membership. In the wake of the Streamy Awards show there were commentaries indicating that certain content creators were denied membership summarily and without stated cause. As I hail from the Toronto, Canada area, what efforts are being made to make the IAWTV an actual international body? I had heard that the membership committee was to reconvene to review potential new applicants. Is that the case and if so what criteria are the decisions based on?

Given the upstart nature of the new media and the democratization of creation and technology, if the IAWTV is to be relevant it must be more responsive. If it is to be international in scope, then steps must be taken sooner than later to bring creators from outside of the New York and Los Angeles hubs into the fold.

Thanks again,
Lindsay Stewart

Comments are closed.