<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
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.
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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[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<mailto: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>
[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<mailto: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>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: 15 June 2010 16:16
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgreer@xxxxxxxxx>>
Many thanks Rafik. Can we define 'not so expensive'?
Caroline.
From: Rafik Dammak
[mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: 15 June 2010 16:08
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: William Drake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[mailto: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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake<http://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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html<http://www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html>
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake<http://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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake<http://www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake>
***********************************************************
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|