Re: [council] Audiocast

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the trial.
Regards
Olga

2010/7/12 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
>