[council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings

Mon Jun 21 12:13:37 UTC 2010

Hi

Thanks Liz.  

On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Liz Gasster wrote:

> Thanks Bill for the additional clarification.  Regarding your clarification that:
>  
> 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.
> 
> Audiocasting the teleconferences (not through Adobe) but through our telecom conference service provider will be more expensive, and will add complexity that we must also consider (still happy to pursue and provide information, I am just making that point).  Would the toll free numbers be made public?  Today that is not done, Glen sends the relevant dial ins to the permitted participants (e.g. Councilors and staff).  Often people need to be dialed out to, each of these is done individually, so there is considerable staff overhead to coordinate access for each ad hoc participant, in addition to additional toll charges. So if this process continues, listeners would need to RSVP in advance so that the information can be provided.   It can be very labor intensive today, these costs would increase if we were to have many more “listeners”.  Making the call-in numbers public (in order to avoid this overhead) may create other issues to consider.

What about webcasting?  I don't recall off hand that I've seen that done from a teleconference as opposed to a F2F, but was assuming it could be.  

BD

>  
> I am not objecting to the idea, I just want to pursue this in the way you envision it working.
>  
> Thanks again, Liz
>  
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: Liz Gasster
> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; council at 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 15th.  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 15th 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 at graduateinstitute.ch] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:52 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Gasster; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak; council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion on Transparency of Council Meetings
>  
> Hi
>  
> 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 at icann.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:26 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Caroline Greer; Rafik Dammak
> Cc: William Drake; council at 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 :
>  
> 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. Staff is asked to provide this information to the Council prior to its meeting on 15 July 2010.
> Thanks, Liz
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at 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 at 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 23rd.  In particular, Liz has sent a request to the ICANN IT department.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Greer
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: Rafik Dammak
> Cc: William Drake; council at 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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:16
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: William Drake; council at 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 at mtld.mobi>
> Many thanks Rafik. Can we define ‘not so expensive’?
>  
> Caroline.
>  
> From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 15 June 2010 16:08
> To: Caroline Greer
> Cc: William Drake; council at 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 at 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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at graduateinstitute.ch
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100621/baa77668/attachment.html>