Re: [council] Regarding web conferencing tool that was trialed during the call

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

I am afraid this may not sound like a pleasant feedback, but this is one
eg. that brought home, my lose on the 'working methods' at GNSO.

While I appreciate the use of the Netmeeting  'on trail' by the GNSO
Secretariat, I am lost as to why we chose this tool among others.  Like
Marilyn, I have experience with it in yes, in press briefings and sent my
comments to the Secretariat earlier and asked the same cost factor I
believe.

But I am not sure again *what approach we have taken*, since no one has
discussed this on the conference this morning, except merely saying we are
trying this tool.  And I am not suggesting that we are going to, *but are we
going to try different tools at every conference and determine
success/failure rate?* or again, due to lack of discussion, are we planning
to observe the requirements of the users as in previous emails (as in
below)., and place our efforts to narrow down the choices?

A while back, I sent out an email to you all, and asked Bruce to perhaps
discuss the matter in today's agenda, given of course that it was a priority
issues for all.  This was the combined feed back so far on the subject of
the netmeeting:


>  *1-Work group Computing Options:*
> - Ross had an idea you want to share. I will leave it up to you.  I would
> love to use MS net meeting, we used it extensively at Intel for global
> communications/conferences.  I look forward to what you think is suitable
> for ICANN.
>
Tom suggested:

>   - Possibility to show online presentations e.g. Powerpoint
>  - Possibility to access to a online realtime scripe
>  - Possibility to ask questions via a messenger system
>  - Possibility to to "raise a hand".
>  - Possibility to see who's on the call
>  - MP3 recording
>  - product/service should be independent of any the operating system
>

There were also other administrative matters within the same email, which
perhaps did not require priority or have been answered already, or am I to
guess that there would be a group that goes out and works on it and comes
back to report to us, same as above.

While I am not suggesting that this is the modes operands for GNSO, as
someone new to the council,  *I certainly am frustrated in the methods of
the working environment, as I feel there seem to be a group that are tryng
to solve a genuine problem and others that are working in isolation to
report to us after getting our input*.  I would have thought that if there
is a concern held by more then few, it would be at least a matter of open
group discussion.

eg. on today's net meeting, if I think who ever is tryng any tool, before
they bring the experiment to us, they should suggest *pointer of use,* for
us since again there is no pre-discussion.  This way, at least we all get
the opportunity to test any tool on a 1hr conference, otherwise it defeats
the purpose.  *Can someone give us a feed back if the tool we have tried is
inclusive of all the above*, at a minimum, this should be easily answered by
the vendor.

Finally,  I recommend if  the issues around net meeting are significant
enough (which I presume it was), we should be taking the time to bring it up
in at least 'other' part of the agenda, so we can all contribute, in our
research and thoughts of what is required, Otherwise, we are just giving lip
service to the real issues and people that are needing to solve a problem,
as we hide behind as to why we never acted on them in the first place.

Respectfully,
Sophia
------------

On 13/04/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I certainly volunteer to be part of any active trial. I use Net Meeting
> for
> other purposes, but typically with more central control -- e.g. often use
> it
> for press briefings, etc.
>
> But our needs are a bit different and this can be quite an enhancement. We
> need to be cognizant that it might not be as useful in developing
> countries,
> where two connections are needed. In that case, we would want to have
> documents distributed ahead of time as much as possible and not rely on
> real
> time distribution. Just some initial thoughts.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
> Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:05 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding web conferencing tool that was trialed
> during the call
>
> I wasn't able to use the Net system since I'm on a MAC and there didn't
> seem to be an option for my operating system.
>
> Robin
>
>
> Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> >Hello Marilyn,
> >
> >
> >
> >>I found the Net meeting support helpful. However, I note that
> >>it is really a tool for the use of the staff and chair, to
> >>provide documents, and to show editing on line while we meet.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That was how it was used during the call, as we were just learning how
> >to use the software tools.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I am not objecting to that but have a question. Let's say,
> >>hypothetically, Bruce wanted to turn to two councilors and
> >>ask that they draft something online in terms of language...
> >>can those councilors be "given the pen"?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I tried to post a "note" and wasn't able to do that. I
> >>thought that was a feature. That would allow councilors to
> >>self queue, for example.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There are a few features that could probably be used here.
> >
> >For example, it is possible to ask the presenter a question, and the
> >question is queued.  That could probably match the requirement you
> >describe.
> >
> >E.g the Question could be: "Marilyn to speak please".   I can respond
> >with "Go Ahead".  This can be displayed to all people in general.
> >
> >Alternatively with staff support - it is possible that the function of
> >managing the queue could be delegated to a staff person, that could
> >enter the names of those in the queue and display that information.   It
> >was helpful in Wellington for example, when Liz Williams kept track of
> >the queue.
> >
> >I think these types of tools can be quite powerful - but there is a
> >learning curve to get used to any tool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>What do we pay for Netmeeting, Glen? I'm wondering if it is a
> >>tool that we can trial for use in the TFs as well.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think we can certainly trial at the task force level.  Olof, Glen, and
> >I spent about an hour experimenting with the tool prior to the call.
> >
> >We probably need to get a few people "up-to-speed" with such a tool, and
> >then run some general tutorials for Council/task force members that are
> >separate from our normal meetings - so that we can run through the
> >features - and document how to use the features in our context.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>