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
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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
I agree with the trial. Regards Olga 2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *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
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@piercelaw.edu 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@gmail.com> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC:Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/12/2010 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast I agree with the trial. Regards Olga 2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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 Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@gmail.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/12/2010 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast I agree with the trial. Regards Olga 2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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 Pierce Law | University of New Hampshire - An Innovative Partnership <http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
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@verisign.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu 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@gmail.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/12/2010 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast I agree with the trial. Regards Olga 2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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/>
Hi, Thanks Marika for moving this forward, option 4 sounds right. I'll be on a plane during the call but look forward to hearing from folks how it worked. Best, Bill On Jul 13, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
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@verisign.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@piercelaw.edu
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@gmail.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/12/2010 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast I agree with the trial. Regards Olga
2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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
*********************************************************** 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 ***********************************************************
Is it possible to get an idea of how many times the MP3 link of the Council call has been downloaded month to month? Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:01 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@piercelaw.edu<mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu> 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@gmail.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 7/12/2010 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [council] Audiocast I agree with the trial. Regards Olga 2010/7/12 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> 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@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] 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 [cid:RGNFEKPQOESA.affiliationlogo.jpg]<http://www.piercelaw.edu/>
participants (6)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
Marika Konings -
Mary Wong -
Olga Cavalli -
William Drake