Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Thanks Liz.  

On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Liz Gasster wrote:

> Thanks Bill for the additional clarification.  Regarding your clarification 
> that:
>  
> We may be misunderstanding each other here.  I did not suggest opening the 
> Adobe Connect rooms to all comers, which could indeed become a mess with 
> unknown unknowns commenting in the chat etc.  I asked only that we audiocast 
> the calls so people could listen.
> 
> Audiocasting the teleconferences (not through Adobe) but through our telecom 
> conference service provider will be more expensive, and will add complexity 
> that we must also consider (still happy to pursue and provide information, I 
> am just making that point).  Would the toll free numbers be made public?  
> Today that is not done, Glen sends the relevant dial ins to the permitted 
> participants (e.g. Councilors and staff).  Often people need to be dialed out 
> to, each of these is done individually, so there is considerable staff 
> overhead to coordinate access for each ad hoc participant, in addition to 
> additional toll charges. So if this process continues, listeners would need 
> to RSVP in advance so that the information can be provided.   It can be very 
> labor intensive today, these costs would increase if we were to have many 
> more “listeners”.  Making the call-in numbers public (in order to avoid this 
> overhead) may create other issues to consider.


What about webcasting?  I don't recall off hand that I've seen that done from a 
teleconference as opposed to a F2F, but was assuming it could be.  

BD

>  
> I am not objecting to the idea, I just want to pursue this in the way you 
> envision it working.
>  
> Thanks again, Liz
>  
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: Liz Gasster
> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Hi Liz
>  
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Liz Gasster wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Bill,
>  
> I am not sure how my response changes the intent of your motion.  I do see 
> that my proposal would delay implementation, because I don’t want to give you 
> incorrect or incomplete information, but my desire is to respond quickly and 
> in a way that is consistent with your intent. 
>  
> Oh, I just meant that my proposal was that we decide on Wednesday whether to 
> do this (based on the assumption that the cost is at least as manageable as 
> it is for organizations that have far fewer resources and yet do it), rather 
> than that we ask for cost info and put off making a decision until a future 
> Council meeting.  With the ATRT process and related themes in the air, it'd 
> have been a nice signal to have the announcement be one of the headlines out 
> of the Brussels meeting.  Friendly GACers might even mention it at the ITU 
> Plenipotentiary in October when the usual themes arise.
>                                              
> I do think we can respond relatively quickly, but there are issues to 
> consider that I don’t want to treat in a cursory manner.   I “think” that the 
> incremental audio streaming costs if we can audiocast like we do for these 
> public meetings will be relatively small. 
>  
> That was my guess
> 
> 
> But, for example, there are limits to the number of people who can be in an 
> Adobe Connect room without expanding to a special (larger, more costly) room. 
>  And there are some consequences that the Council might want to be aware of, 
> for example all who access the adobe connect room would be able to comment in 
> the chat room (which might have both benefits and challenges).  This may not 
> be important to the Council but you may not know who is in the Adobe Connect 
> room (and chatting) as individuals self-identify when they enter.  Also, you 
> don’t say whether you expect that audio streaming should also be provided to 
> individuals who cannot access the Internet in order to listen. 
>  
> We may be misunderstanding each other here.  I did not suggest opening the 
> Adobe Connect rooms to all comers, which could indeed become a mess with 
> unknown unknowns commenting in the chat etc.  I asked only that we audiocast 
> the calls so people could listen.
> 
>  
> We have existing tools that will almost certainly be both functional and more 
> cost effective than investing in additional tools, and I think we can provide 
> accurate information by the 15th.  If the Council thinks that we should 
> publicly solicit competitive bids, it would be quite difficult to do so to 
> meet the deadline of the 15th of July.
>  
> Ok if you think soliciting bids would necessarily drag out the process, how 
> about "In making this determination, staff shall assess the services and 
> prices of external suppliers, as well the cost of providing such services 
> internally through ICANN's own network operations."?  If obtaining the least 
> expensive reliable service is the issue and if there's at least the 
> possibility that internal provisioning might prove pricey enough to affect 
> Councilors' votes on a motion, it'd make sense to at least know what external 
> vendors could offer as a comparative baseline, no?
>  
> Anyone else have thoughts on this as well?
>  
> Best,
>  
> Bill
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:52 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Gasster; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Hi
>  
> Well the amendment obviously changes the intent quite a bit, but if a two 
> step process will make everyone happier, fine.  But how about a little tweak:
>  
> RESOLVED that the Council asks staff to determine the costs associated with 
> audiocasting all GNSO Council teleconference meetings (in addition to being 
> recorded) so that members of the community can listen in real time. In making 
> this determination, staff shall publicly solicit competitive bids from 
> external suppliers of such services, as well as assess the cost of providing 
> such services internally through ICANN's own network operations.  Staff is 
> asked to provide cost information on the available options to the Council 
> prior to its meeting on 15 July 2010.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Bill
>  
>  
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I am willing to put this forward as a friendly amendment if that can help.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 20 juin 2010 à 11:38, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> Bill/Olga,
>  
> I had asked Staff to try to have the estimated cost info in advance of our 
> meeting this week, but, as you can see, it looks like that is not possible.  
> Would you consider amending your motion as requested by Liz?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:26 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak
> Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> All,
>  
> We are still working on this request.  I do not want to respond prematurely, 
> as there are several options to consider.  Because of how little time we have 
> had to explore this, I would like to propose that the Council consider a 
> friendly amendment.  Would the Council be willing to consider the following :
>  
> RESOLVED that the Council asks staff to determine the costs associated with 
> audiocasting all GNSO Council teleconference meetings (in addition to being 
> recorded) so that members of the community can listen in real time. Staff is 
> asked to provide this information to the Council prior to its meeting on 15 
> July 2010.
> Thanks, Liz
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:34 PM
> To: Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak
> Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Staff will try to get some rough cost estimates of a couple alternative ways 
> of doing this before our meeting on the 23rd.  In particular, Liz has sent a 
> request to the ICANN IT department.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Caroline Greer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Thanks Rafik (and Bill also).
>  
> I have no clue about the costs associated with such things so I was just 
> trying to get a handle on it. Sounds like a very low level cost from what you 
> both say.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Caroline.
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:16
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Hi Caroline,
>  
> I was active in WG about remote participation for Internet Governance Forum, 
> and my understanding is that cost wasn't a barrier for setup either audiocast 
> or videocast. 
> I am even in contact with team from Politechnico Torino which help IGF 
> secretariat to setup video and audio streaming for each IGF open consultation 
> and they only request a reliable bandwidth Internet connection.
>  
> Rafik
> 
> 2010/6/16 Caroline Greer <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
> Many thanks Rafik. Can we define ‘not so expensive’?
>  
> Caroline.
>  
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:08
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Hi Caroline,
>  
> audiocast is different to what as councilors we use for confcall. it is just 
> classic audio streaming and it is not so expensive to be setup. 
>  
> Regards
>  
> Rafik
>  
> 2010/6/15 Caroline Greer <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Do you know if we have a cost estimate for the set-up of real-time audio
> calls? I think we might need that information in order to consider the
> motion.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Caroline.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: 15 June 2010 10:03
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In light of the bit of conversation over the past couple days concerning
> the relationship between Council members and their SGs, the ATRT process
> and our pending meeting with them, and internal discussions in NCSG, I
> hear by make the following motion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS
> 
> WHEREAS the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes be
> made as transparent as possible;
> 
> WHEREAS the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness of
> and engagement in GNSO activities;
> 
> WHEREAS the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members
> represent their respective Stakeholder Groups in a manner determined by
> those Stakeholder Groups;
> 
> WHEREAS this representation function would be enhanced if Stakeholder
> Group members were able to listen in real time to Council meetings; and
> 
> WHEREAS it would be impractical to open the GNSO Council meeting
> teleconference facility to Stakeholder Group members;
> 
> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
> 
> RESOLVED that beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council teleconference
> meetings will be audiocast (in addition to being recorded) so that
> members of the community can listen in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  
>  
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
> ***********************************************************
> 
>  

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************