Re: [council] Fwd: Postponing or amending MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL?

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Stephane,

Looks familiar…:-)  But I'm a bit unclear as to whether it's really necessary 
anymore.  As noted we've been told by quite a few people that web audiocasting 
from a teleconference is doable and ought to be quite affordable, and Chuck has 
said that while the registries would prefer to know just how much it would 
cost, they're be prepared to support it either way.  So the question is, are 
there a lot of folks who really feel we need a number first, or shall we just 
pull the trigger and send a nice signal from Brussels?  Again, I will do 
whatever makes folks happy, but if there's not a real contingent for delaying 
then why bother?

Bill

On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> I would like to propose the following amendment as friendly on Bill's motion 
> (agenda item 7.2).
> 
> Bill, Olga, would you accept as friendly?
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Début du message réexpédié :
> 
>>> 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 assess the services and prices of 
>>> external suppliers, as well 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.
>