[At-review] Publication of recording of the RT meetings

Tue Apr 27 23:37:39 UTC 2010

My comments inter-spaced  below...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 28 April 2010 08:56, Peter Dengate Thrush
<peter.dengatethrush at icann.org>wrote:

> On 27/04/2010, at 9:01 PM, Marco Lorenzoni wrote:
>
> snip
>
> This is to confirm that staff is exploring the possibility to stream the
> f2f meeting in MdR, following the Review Team’s decision during yesterday’s
> call.
>
> A live broadcasting is unlikely due to technical and contractual reasons,
> but the recordings of open sessions can be organized for publication. We
> will keep you posted on the progresses of these analyses.
>
> Personally, I live live streaming is not needed. Happy if we can do that
> but I think posting a link to an mp3 recording will satisfy the diligent few
> who will listen to the whole of the public meeting in replay.
>

<CLO>  also fine with streaming if possible and MP3 if not (are we likely to
use an Adobe room at all?)  and as my community certainly as some of the
diligent ones who will not only listen to it all but may indeed  wish to
follow live streaming  we'd need to 'advertise what were doing ASAP from the
Web space we have set up  and each of us can promulgate to our respective
communities  (as can ICANN per se) via our announce methods but ASAP is the
key here (fits also with Agenda publishing below...

>
>
> Also: as you know there is a specific section of the ICANN website devoted
> to the Affirmation reviews (http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/).
>
>
> Please let us know the level of visibility you would like to give to your
> meetings.
>
> Please inform us:
>
> ·         If you wish to publish the *agendas* of all your meetings
> (including the agendas of your two previous phone conferences)
>
>
> I think we should aim to try and follow a modified version of the  ICANN
> board's schedule, and publish meeting agendas 7 days in advance of meetings.
> This is a good discipline for all.
>

<CLO> agreed  let's do that of at all possible this time and ensure it
happens in the future. would I assume include  information about streaming
or recording archive / upload time etc.,

>
> ·         If you wish to publish *recordings* of all your meetings
> (including the recordings of your two previous phone conferences)
>
> I think these should be published - given that we accept that there will be
> parts of the meeting that are not recorded.
>

<CLO> agree

>
> ·         If you wish to publish the *preliminary reports* of all your
> meetings (including the reports of your two previous phone conferences)
>
> Yes, I think a preliminary report - a line or two reporting on decisions
> taken at the meeting should be published within 24 hours of the meeting
> closing. That is, a no more than 1 page of highlights. This is not minutes.
>

<CLO> Also agree

>
> ·         If you wish to publish the *detailed minutes* of all your
> meetings (including the minutes of your two previous phone conferences)
>
> Yes- within 3-5 days.
> Given that we have recordings, I suggest minutes can be quite terse.
> I suggest little more than the agreements reached, topics discussed,
> resolutions made, with one or two lines of context as required - not a
> near-transcript of the meeting.
>

<CLO> Agree our minutes should be record of formal outcomes and resolutions
 topic review etc., as PDT  has suggested.

>
> A further issue occurs to me ; what the constraints are, if any, on team
> members reporting during or just after the meeting closes?
>
> Members are representatives of their communities, and may feel obliged to
> report in different ways.
> The board is working with tweets; the CEO tweets during and after board
> meetings, and we had, and will soon restore, an ICANN tweet.
>

<CLO> this would be greatly appreciated by At-Large as we also use twitter
tools such as  Skype, Buzz and Wave's  to report as well as collaborate
in... So I'm happy, if others agree, to also allow and state to the record
what open channels to our community we will be / are using,  within of
course our established procedures such as when we go  'in camera'  etc.,  a
simple message out via whatever media we use (jointly or severally)  saying
 e.g. =>in camera session until <insert time> outcomes will be reported in
the usual way. Session will resume at <insert time>  sort of thing will do
from my point of view.

SO along with Peter I'm certainly all for full and prompt disclosure (all
ALAC and RALO meetings including WG's and Sub committees are recorded and
published) unless in the extraordinary circumstance of confidentiality being
ruled or required.  and as long as we continue to note and share any
countervailing issues I'm sure we can manage and meet community expectations
for our own transparency and accountability.

>
> I am in favour of full and prompt disclosure  - are there any
> countervailing issues?
>
> regards
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Marco Lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> ICANN
>
> Director, Organizational Review
>
> marco.lorenzoni at icann.org
>
> Phone: +32.2.234 78 69
>
> Mobile: +32.475.72 47 47
>
> Fax: +32 2 234 7848
>
> Skype: marco_lorenzoni
>
> ---------------------
>
> 6, Rond Point Schuman
> B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-review mailing list
> At-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-review mailing list
> At-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100428/ae5af77b/attachment.html 