But to get back to the idea of Skype meetings for alliance leaders. There are 30 or so domains. There is a CM for each one. To get each to provide the list of names (publicly announced on the forum - these can be just leader of such and such alliance) plus a time and a contact doesn’t take long, provided they know their community. If they don’t then that’s a pretty good indication of which are doing a good job or not isn’t it? If you don’t want to use Skype, there are plenty of cheap online meeting platforms like join.me. The agenda comes from a forum thread asking for questions. You schedule in an hour, post the agenda on the forum and the minutes at the end.
It's not that simple. I was about to write 5 pages essay why but it does not really matter, lets assume TG found a way to decide which alliance to be invited on if not on all but on most domains and who is to represent each. You said 30 domains (I thought it is over 40 but I may be mistaken), I would say minimum of 2 from each speed type so 4 per domain. It is 120 people, if each gets 5 minutes total to talk we have 10 hours meeting on hands. Time - leadership room of my alliance was 5 people last server, EU, both costs of US and AU. It is not easy to find time when all 5 of us are comfortably on-line (i.e. can sit down and talk for even 30 mins) no idea how to make it possible for 120. Language - with absolute certainty I can tell you that majority of chosen 120 across the globe will speak no English (or German, or any other language) leave alone good enough English to participate in audio conversation.
If you meant a sequence of such meeting in different zones language is still an issue, I have no idea if TG has anyone in their staff to run such meeting on Vietnamese or Turkish for example. In any case, TG did exactly that - they picked a sample of the group you are suggesting and invited that group for face to face meeting. It was not easy for everyone to participate in fast paced conversation even between even 15 people (language again), official part of the meeting lasted somewhat 20 hours, casual conversations in small groups were probably another 30 hours, yet we all left with questions we did not find time/good opportunity to ask.
I like the approach, I want to see TG building up on the event and improving the process. So what made you think that an on-line meeting of 120 (much more really) people will be more productive?