<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Fwd: Postponing or amending MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL?
Given that the requirements for audio streaming
are a audio input jack (found on most any PC), a
relatively simple interface connecting it to the
teleconference bridge, audio streaming software
(free or proprietary) which I cannot imagine that
ICANN doesn't already have) and a moderate-speed
Internet connection, it is hard to imagine that
this will be financially- or skill-challenging.
Alan
At 23/06/2010 05:37 AM, William Drake wrote:
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|