RE: [council] Audiocast

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika.  Assuming no Councilor objections, I support the trial run this 
coming Thursday.  That will allow us to fulfill the resolution of starting the 
service this month and also to evaluate it after the meeting to help us refine 
future plans.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:37 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Audiocast

 

Dear All,

In response to Council Resolution on Enhancing the Transparency of GNSO Council 
Meetings (20100623-5), the GNSO Policy Staff has explored the different options 
available with the ICANN IT department to audiocast the GNSO Council meetings 
going forward. Below you will find an overview of the different options, 
including possible benefits / disadvantages and a proposed way forward to test 
and assess the recommended solution as soon as possible.
  
1.    Audiocast via Adobe Connect
Description: The conference bridge would be connected via an Adobe Connect room 
(a separate Adobe Connect room from the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room) so 
that participants can listen to the audiocast via Adobe Connect. 
Benefits:
§ Once system is in place, the GNSO Secretariat can set it up with the 
assistance of the operator for each conference call so that no additional IT 
support would be required.
Potential disadvantages:
§ Short delay between real-time audio and audiocast
§ Requires use of proprietary software 
§ Less suitable for low bandwidth participants
§ Requires Internet Connection
Cost:
§  Staff resources to set up Adobe Connect room connection for each meeting
§  One phone connection to audio bridge
 
2.    Separate teleconference-bridge for audiocast participants
Description: set up a separate teleconference bridge for audiocast 
participants. All those on the separate teleconference bridge would then be 
connected to the Council audio bridge with a muted line.
Benefits: 
§ No delay in audiocast
§ No IT support required
§ No internet connection required
Potential disadvantages:
§ Requires operator / GNSO Secretariat support (e.g. dial-outs, connection 
problems)
§ Potential high costs depending on number of participants
§ No toll-free numbers available for all countries, although in this case 
dial-outs can be provided
§ Requires phone line
Cost:
§ Potentially high, depending on number of participants (toll-free numbers / 
dial-outs are provided for which the cost range per minute depending on country 
of origin)
 
3.    Audiocast through web-based interface (similar to how audiocast is 
provided during ICANN meetings)
Description: A stream audio encoder will be set up along with a telephone 
hybrid.  The audio from the conference call will be connected to the stream 
encoder so that whatever occurs on the conference call will be transmitted to 
the stream encoder.  The stream encoder would them send this to our relay 
servers and the public could connect to those servers with the URL we provide.
Benefits: 
§ Accessible to low bandwidth participants
§ No proprietary software required to run the audiocast
Potential disadvantages:
§  Approx. 15 second delay between real-time audio and audiocast
§  Resource intense as it would require IT support for every GNSO Council call 
to set up audiocast and monitor to ensure quality and continuity. 
§  Requires Internet connection
Cost:
§  IT support time to set up for each call and monitor during the course of the 
meeting
§  Audio equipment
§  One phone connection to audio bridge
 
4.    Automated audiocast stream via web-site
Description: A special software programme would be developed which would allow 
an operator to dial-in to the conference bridge and stream the software via a 
web control panel.
Benefits:
§ Accessible to low bandwidth participants
§ No propriety software required to run the audiocast 
§ After initial development, easy to maintain and run by GNSO staff - no 
continuous IT support required
§ Apart from initial development, low costs
Potential disadvantages:
§ Approx. 15 second delay between real-time audio and audiocast
§ Requires Internet connection
Cost:
§ Initial development of software programme by IT team
§ One phone connection to audio bridge

Recommendation: Taking into the accessibility for audiocast participants; staff 
resources required to implement and maintain the system; and, the overall costs 
of the different options, ICANN Staff would like to propose to run a trial with 
the 'automated audiocast stream via web-site' option (option 4) to see whether 
this system would meet the needs identified by the GNSO Council. To this end, 
our IT Team is in the process of developing a prototype software programme that 
it hopes to try out during the next GNSO Council meeting on 15 July. On the 
basis of this trial, ICANN Staff would be able to assess, based on feedback 
from the GNSO Council, audiocast participants and a technical assessment, 
whether additional changes or improvements are required. 
 
We look forward to receiving your feedback and will be available to answer any 
questions you might have during our next meeting on 15 July. 

With best regards,

Marika