My personal opinion is that it would be helpful to have as much information as possible when we act on the motion. I am confident that the RySG would support the intent of the motion but would prefer voting on the motion after we have estimated approaches and costs.

Chuck

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:09 PM
To: Liz Gasster
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Hi Liz

On Jun 20, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Liz Gasster wrote:

Hi Bill,

I am not sure how my response changes the intent of your motion. I do see that my proposal would delay implementation, because I don’t want to give you incorrect or incomplete information, but my desire is to respond quickly and in a way that is consistent with your intent.

Oh, I just meant that my proposal was that we decide on Wednesday whether to do this (based on the assumption that the cost is at least as manageable as it is for organizations that have far fewer resources and yet do it), rather than that we ask for cost info and put off making a decision until a future Council meeting. With the ATRT process and related themes in the air, it'd have been a nice signal to have the announcement be one of the headlines out of the Brussels meeting. Friendly GACers might even mention it at the ITU Plenipotentiary in October when the usual themes arise.

I do think we can respond relatively quickly, but there are issues to consider that I don’t want to treat in a cursory manner. I “think” that the incremental audio streaming costs if we can audiocast like we do for these public meetings will be relatively small.

That was my guess

But, for example, there are limits to the number of people who can be in an Adobe Connect room without expanding to a special (larger, more costly) room. And there are some consequences that the Council might want to be aware of, for example all who access the adobe connect room would be able to comment in the chat room (which might have both benefits and challenges). This may not be important to the Council but you may not know who is in the Adobe Connect room (and chatting) as individuals self-identify when they enter. Also, you don’t say whether you expect that audio streaming should also be provided to individuals who cannot access the Internet in order to listen.

We may be misunderstanding each other here. I did not suggest opening the Adobe Connect rooms to all comers, which could indeed become a mess with unknown unknowns commenting in the chat etc. I asked only that we audiocast the calls so people could listen.

We have existing tools that will almost certainly be both functional and more cost effective than investing in additional tools, and I think we can provide accurate information by the 15^th. If the Council thinks that we should publicly solicit competitive bids, it would be quite difficult to do so to meet the deadline of the 15^th of July.

Ok if you think soliciting bids would necessarily drag out the process, how about "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."? If obtaining the least expensive reliable service is the issue and if there's at least the possibility that internal provisioning might prove pricey enough to affect Councilors' votes on a motion, it'd make sense to at least know what external vendors could offer as a comparative baseline, no?

Anyone else have thoughts on this as well?

Best,

Bill

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Gasster; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Well the amendment obviously changes the intent quite a bit, but if a two step process will make everyone happier, fine. But how about a little tweak:

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 publicly solicit competitive bids from external suppliers of such services, as well as assess 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.

Best,

Bill

On Jun 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

I am willing to put this forward as a friendly amendment if that can help.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 20 juin 2010 à 11:38, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

Bill/Olga,

I had asked Staff to try to have the estimated cost info in advance of our meeting this week, but, as you can see, it looks like that is not possible. Would you consider amending your motion as requested by Liz?

Chuck

From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak
Cc: William Drake; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

All,

We are still working on this request. I do not want to respond prematurely, as there are several options to consider. Because of how little time we have had to explore this, I would like to propose that the Council consider a friendly amendment. Would the Council be willing to consider the following :

Thanks, Liz

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:34 PM
To: Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak
Cc: William Drake; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Staff will try to get some rough cost estimates of a couple alternative ways of doing this before our meeting on the 23^rd. In particular, Liz has sent a request to the ICANN IT department.

Chuck

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Rafik Dammak
Cc: William Drake; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Thanks Rafik (and Bill also).

I have no clue about the costs associated with such things so I was just trying to get a handle on it. Sounds like a very low level cost from what you both say.

Kind regards,

Caroline.

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: 15 June 2010 16:16
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: William Drake; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Hi Caroline,

I was active in WG about remote participation for Internet Governance Forum, and my understanding is that cost wasn't a barrier for setup either audiocast or videocast.

I am even in contact with team from Politechnico Torino which help IGF secretariat to setup video and audio streaming for each IGF open consultation and they only request a reliable bandwidth Internet connection.

Rafik

2010/6/16 Caroline Greer <cgreer@mtld.mobi>

Many thanks Rafik. Can we define ‘not so expensive’?

Caroline.

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 June 2010 16:08
To: Caroline Greer
Cc: William Drake; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Hi Caroline,

audiocast is different to what as councilors we use for confcall. it is just classic audio streaming and it is not so expensive to be setup.

Regards

Rafik

2010/6/15 Caroline Greer <cgreer@mtld.mobi>

Bill,

Do you know if we have a cost estimate for the set-up of real-time audio
calls? I think we might need that information in order to consider the
motion.

Thanks,

Caroline.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: 15 June 2010 10:03
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Hello,

In light of the bit of conversation over the past couple days concerning
the relationship between Council members and their SGs, the ATRT process
and our pending meeting with them, and internal discussions in NCSG, I
hear by make the following motion.

MOTION ON ENHANCING THE TRANSPARENCY OF GNSO COUNCIL MEETINGS

WHEREAS the Affirmation of Commitments mandates that ICANN processes be
made as transparent as possible;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council seeks to promote broad community awareness of
and engagement in GNSO activities;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council is a management team whose elected members
represent their respective Stakeholder Groups in a manner determined by
those Stakeholder Groups;

WHEREAS this representation function would be enhanced if Stakeholder
Group members were able to listen in real time to Council meetings; and

WHEREAS it would be impractical to open the GNSO Council meeting
teleconference facility to Stakeholder Group members;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED that beginning in July 2010, all GNSO Council teleconference
meetings will be audiocast (in addition to being recorded) so that
members of the community can listen in real time.

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html

www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************