Page History

WT B MINUTES:  8 DEC 2010 – SPECIAL CARTAGENA AGENDA

Participants:  Annalisa Roger, Fouad Bajwa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Sébastien Bachollet, Gordon Chillcott, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Wolf Ludwig, Yaovi Atohoun, Sandra Hoferichter, Cintra Sooknanan, Pavan Budhrani,

Apologies: 

Absent:  Gareth Shearman, Baudouin Schombe, Michel Tchonang, Darlene A. Thompson, Carlos Aguirre, Antonio Medina Gómez, Moataz Shaarawy

Staff: Seth Greene, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Cory Schruth, Roman Pelikh, Colin [?]

SPECIAL CARTAGENA AGENDA

1)  Discussion of any further "quick wins" (& next steps) to be reported in Wrap-Up

Task 7.1.:  Review of communication and collaboration needs considered unmet by ALSes and RALOs globally

Task 7.2.:  Review of technologies already used by At-Large and across ICANN that could fill all or some of the 7.1 needs of the ALSes and RALOs

Gordon:  Regarding tasks 7.1. & 7.2., there is much information that can be gotten from the ALS Survey.  The recommendation tasks are basically asking us where the holes/needs regarding communication and collaboration tools are within ghe ALS and At-Large.  And the beginning of an answer is offered by the ALS Survey.

Cheryl:  So, you’re saying we should look at the Survey responses and find out:

• If there is, in fact, hard data in the Survey that answers or partly our questions; and/or
• If the Survey suggests next questions we should of the ALSes about this.

Of course, Dev is the person who should be talking about the Survey and its responses.

Matthias:  The Survey results were already presented Sunday, and I will send them to the WT B mailing list.

Dev:  What the ALS Survey responses actually showed was that the ALSes used, overall, the following communication tools, in this order:  E-mail, Skype, and Facebook.  The tool least used was RSS feeds.  And, by individual RALO, Skype and Facebook were most used by APRALO and LACRALO.  (Dev added later – below:  Survey showed that other tools used by the ALSes include instant messaging (IM), traditional postal mail, press releases disseminated via media, and others.)

Cheryl:  Did the Survey indicate what some main barriers or difficulties were, such as low bandwidth and/or intermittent connectivity.  If so, we should then be aiming more toward mobile devices.

Dev:  No, those issues did not come up.  The main barriers/problems that were cited are:

• Documents being too long; and
• Not enough knowledgeable members (in the ALSes, etc.).
  

Cheryl:  To clarify, it should be noted that the Survey asked what communication tools the ALSes used.

Task 7.2.  Review of technologies already used by At-Large and across ICANN that could fill all or some of the 7.1 needs of the ALSes and RALOs

Task 7.2.1.  Consideration of effects of technologies identified in 7.2 on accessibility issues

Wolf:  In our region, one must use, in order to be effective, various, outgoing alert technologies (those that work on a one-to-one level), such as text messaging, mobile messaging, messages left on Skype, etc.  But, of course, we must use this approach sparingly – let’s say for two or three big announcements per year.  In other words, only for emergencies.  If, on the other hand, someone were to take this approach daily, he/she’d be ignored.

Cheryl:  So, regarding 7.2. and 7.2.1., Wolf is recommending the use of multiple tools to get across the same announcement/message, but to do so judiciously.

Task 7.2.2.  Cost/benefit analysis of expanding the use of the technologies identified in 7.2 to fill all or some of the needs of the ALSes and RALOs

Cheryl:  All technology has a cost.  First, there are those for which we are charged, such as AC Rooms, Adigo phone lines, etc.  And these two examples should be added to task 7.2.2. in the Simplified Outline.  Second, there are those for which we are not charged, but they come with a cost, as well.  This cost can be in the form of poor or no support for the tool, low capacity, etc. 

>>  AI:  Seth to add two technologies (AC Rooms and Adigo teleconferencing) to WT B’s task 7.2. (review of technologies in use within At-Large/ICANN as solution to RALO/ALS needs) and task 7.2.2. (cost-benefit analysis of expanding use of these technologies) in WT B Simplified Improvements Outline.

Heidi:  For example, as well, are the automatic translating tools that come on some of the mailing lists At-Large uses (such as the LACRALO list).  We are charged for these.  By the way, in the next couple of months we are switching from the automatic translation tool(s) we currently use in the LACRALO mailing list to Google’s translation tool.

>>  AI:  Heidi to compile list of charges for ALAC/At-Large’s use of its various communication and collaboration tools (such as AC Rooms, Adigo teleconferencing, automatic translation tools on mailing lists).

Cheryl:  So, the time-critical, essential collaboration that is often the way At-Large does business and, therefore, the ability of our Community to engage are at risk.  That’s the obvious, and I think correct, interpretation of these technology barriers we’re discussing, some of which have been revealed by the ALS Survey.  Also, we’ve decided we need to acknowledge regional limitations both in identifying these overall limitations and solutions to them.  For example, some regions basically don’t use Skype; others don’t’ use Google; and so on.  For example, I myself am surprised, always, that I don’t see more pod casts.

Dev:  Well, the Survey showed that, other tools used by the ALSes include instant messaging (IM), traditional postal mail, press releases disseminated via media, and others.

Heidi:  Picking up on Cheryl’s point regarding pod casts, I’d like to say that we are actually quite ready and able to use more pod casts, Webinars, the e-Learning page, and more in filling the communications/collaborations gap.

Heidi:  And this leads well to my informing the WT that, here in Cartagena, Scott Pinzon of ICANN Communications had a conversation with Olivier and Evan on communication tools targeted to At-Large, and we are planning a follow-up talk.  Cheryl and I received an e-mail from Scott about this.

Cheryl:  Dev should definitely be part of that follow-up conversation.

>>  AI:  Heidi to plan conversation (a follow-up to one started in Cartagena) including Scott Pinzon of ICANN Communications, Olivier, Evan, and Dev regarding communications tools and media targeted at At-Large. 

Cheryl:  So, we (a) need to ask some of the ALS Survey questions again, and (c) need to look at the Survey data that we were able to get from the Survey regarding the tools already being used by ALSes and ask some follow-up questions.

Sebastien:  Regarding these tools that can be targeted to At-Large (as Heidi was mentioning) – and returning to the topic of pod casts -- I must point out that the pod casts we’ve done so far have had difficulties and have been somewhat low quality.  Two changes that be enormous improvements would be (a) to cut the Webinars we use into smaller pieces that could easily be used as pod casts, and (b) to definitely get them translated.

Dev:  Actually, Scott and I have also been talking about the use of another interesting potential tool for us:  YouTube, which has enormous educational potential because of features such as being able to add links to the videos.

Dev:  Also, another tool with much potential is Adobe Connect.  If the Survey were filled out today, it might reveal positive information about Adobe Connect (our meeting rooms).  But, keep in mind, when the Survey initially was developed, the use of Adobe Connect was just first getting off the ground.

Annalisa:  Could we make Adobe Connect meeting rooms available to the ALSes for use either regularly or occasionally?

Sandra:  The EURALO ALSes would support the use of AC Rooms for certain calls. 

Cheryl:  It hasn’t been done, but certainly could be.  It could perhaps be done with an ALS having its own AC Room or being able to request from ICANN the use of, let’s say, AC Room A or AC Room B.  What we wouldn’t want, of course, is for ALS members to start using AC for their own personal use, given the associated costs.  Here’s another technology for which we’re charged. 

>>  AI:  Heidi to check within ICANN about possibility of making Adobe Connect Room(s) available to the ALSes, either regularly or occasionally. 

>>  AI:  Annalisa and Sandra to ask their ALSes to help test the use of Adobe Connect Rooms by ALSes.

Dev:  Continuing with the idea of possible tools targeted to ALSes and At-Large, I’d like to mention that we should consider increasing the use of mobile devices and tools.

Cheryl:  For example, Twitter Twibes, which I used to use quite a bit.  And here we could combine Twibes with the use of another tool that we’ve already identified and that makes Twibes much easier to use – the auto-posting tool Posterous.

>>  AI:  Cheryl to check whether or not Twitter Twibes still exists.

Fouad [or possibly Yaovi]:  I would like us to consider alternative audio tools for use in collaborative rooms, etc.  I think we need to improve our audio abilities during meetings, etc.  And, even better would be our use of an audio tool that helps choose between different available audio paths, when available.

Cheryl:  In fact, Adobe Connect’s rooms are designed to offer audio themselves.  We typically do not use that Adobe Connect feature, because instead we usually use Adigo for audio purely because of the translating it offers. 

Sebastien:  Regarding all of these tools that we’re discussing possibly rolling out to the ALSes, we must remember to include training on them for the ALSes, RALOs, etc.  For example, I for one has never been able to get Twitter to work.

2)  Discussion of presentation/slides for Wrap-Up

Not discussed in this meeting.

3)  Discussion of ALSes' own Confluence pages & next steps

Fouad:  It will be a challenge to get the ALSes to update and reconsider the tools they use.  We will have to work with them toward this goal.  And then we will have to train them on the new technologies.  Plus, the system and the users would need to mature.  That goes for any new tools.  I would estimate that, if we do decide to roll out ALSes’ own Confluence pages, the process would take about one year, perhaps 8-12 months.  That would include the need of the template page for information gathering.  We’d need to design training for the ALSes, then actually conduct the training.  One vehicle for such training that would be very efficient, because it’s when we see the ALSes, would of course be the Showcases that move from region to region.

Dev:  I agree.  It is definitely a concern that it will be difficult to get ALSes to stop using the communication tools they’re using and adapt to new ones. 

Fouad:  That means the next step should be doing a survey that asks what tools they’re doing and what they’d be open to.  (To some extent, this might be the Survey already done.)

Cheryl:  We will have to entice, to motivate them to use whatever new tools we recommend. 

Fouad:  Regarding the Confluence pages for ALSes, there are two options:  public pages or planet pages. 

[Note:  Above to be checked with room recording; phone-line audio was poor.  If correct, what does “public page” and “planet page” mean?]

Dev:  So question is:  For the ALSes, do we need a separate page for each ALS, or can we simply have one page for all ALSes that contains all the information that we want them to have.

Cheryl:  My guess is that we’d end up going with a separate page for each ALS, but we could do either.

Annalisa:  Would it help to send an announcement to the ALSes telling them that this is coming?

Cheryl:  That’s actually regional business.

4)  Next meeting:  Wed, 15 Dec 2010, 13:00 UTC is next regularly scheduled meeting. 

• Do we want to meet then, or – given that today’s meeting (in Cartagena) has been in addition to the regular schedule – do we want to cancel the 15 Dec meeting? 
  

The members decided not to cancel the meeting.  The next meeting will be on Wed, 15 Dec, at 13:00 UTC.  For Cheryl (i.e., in Sydney), that will be on 16 Dec.