Re: [council] Audiocast

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,

Yes, as noted we are still waiting for confirmation from our IT team on the 
trial going ahead or not, but as soon as we have further information, we’ll let 
everyone know.

Best regards,

Marika

On 13/07/10 17:29, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Unfortunately, we do not yet know whether ICANN IT staff will be able to get 
the trial set up in time.  As soon as we know, it would be good for staff to 
send a message as broadly as possible announcing the trial and all of us should 
inform our respective groups.
Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:01 AM
Cc: Council GNSO; Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast


As do I, and thank Marika and the staff for finding and presenting the current 
options clearly.



Will there be (or has there been) a general announcement to the various SGs 
about the 15 July trial, or should the Councillors inform their respective SGs? 
I ask also in case there are to be limits on the number of participants for 
this particular trial run.



Cheers

Mary



Mary W S Wong

Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs

Franklin Pierce Law Center

Two White Street

Concord, NH 03301

USA

Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Phone: 1-603-513-5143

Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php

Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>>


  From:   Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
  To:   "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  CC:   Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Date:   7/12/2010 10:24 PM
  Subject:   Re: [council] Audiocast
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











 <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>