Subject: [vmeet] Apr 23: webex group experiment

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:56:29 -0400

Folks,

We're going to conduct a real-world experiment, using webex, on Friday, 23 
April, at 7am, Pacific Daylight Time.

It will be for 2 hours, with a real agenda, and attempting to get real work done.

Time conversions:

     7apm    PDT

    10am     EDT

     2pm     UTC

     3pm     Amsterdam

     6pm     Moscow

     7:30pm  Kolkata

    10pm     Kuala Lumpur, Beijing

    11pm     Tokyo

    12pm     Sydney

As this list of times makes quite clear, the goal of the common choice for 7am 
pacific time is to have the lower-digit AM values occur over the pacific ocean, 
on the theory that there are the fewest potential participants.  Clearly this is 
unfriently to folks in New Zealand, Hawaii, Micronesia, etc.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:19 -0400

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> We're going to conduct a real-world experiment

Very sorry.  I did mean Friday and therefore meant *24* April (not 23).

Thanks to Bob Hinden for catching this quickly.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: John Buford <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:14:21 -0400

Is the plan to do similar experiments with other products?

John

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html.
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:32:46 -0400

> Is the plan to do similar experiments with other products?

Plan? You think there's a plan???

 But seriously, a good question.  I think the answer depends upon availability. 
If someone can offer access to a tool, we should consider tasting it.

I suggest that for "new" tools we should hear a description, first, to see how 
its feature set matches what we want.

 /d

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:03:41 -0700

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]> wrote:
> But seriously, a good question.  I think the answer depends upon
> availability. If someone can offer access to a tool, we should consider
> tasting it.

The last time I evaluated these products acrobat connect offered an
overall similar set of functionality. I didn't end up liking it as
much but that may be down to individual preference.

> I suggest that for "new" tools we should hear a description, first, to see
> how its feature set matches what we want.

do we a taxonomy of desirable attributes?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:49:43 +0200

> do we a taxonomy of desirable attributes?

I would suggest an iterative process, where one gets the feel for what's 
out there, so one knows what is possible.  I'm not saying, by the way, 
that we should be limited in our desired attributes, but some people 
might not even know what to desire in this respect.

Eliot

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:18:28 -0400

I've never used WebEx, but just going to the web page, I see I can
sign up for a 14-day trial. Then I presumably have to pay $$. Or,
someone has to pay to run the server, and then there is some limited
number of clients that can connect.

Can someone explain please explain the licensing model with WebEx? And
how use of this technology by the IETF will preserve the expected
openness where everyone/anyone can participate?

Thomas

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:22:08 -0400

You can pay by the minute/seat or pay by the month/seat with unlimited
minutes.
The retail numbers are something like $.45/min metered or $100/month
unlimited, but I could be off on that, and of course discounts are
available.

It's a proprietary browser based client. There is support for Windows, Mac,
Linux, Solaris, HP-UX and AIX Operating Systems:
http://support.webex.com/support/system-requirements.html

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thomas Narten
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] Apr 23: webex group experiment

Thomas

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:03:37 -0700

On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Can someone explain please explain the licensing model with WebEx?  
> And how use of this technology by the IETF will preserve the  
> expected openness where everyone/anyone can participate?

The IETF could meet in public squares, but one might assume there is  
no problem meeting in conference centers where fees are also  
required.  To afford the productivity benefit of rooms, chairs, walls,  
lights, projectors, network access, etc. members must individually  
offset a portion of these meeting related fees.

WebEx is no different from the meeting rooms needed to conduct  
meetings and appears to support a wide range of clients.  The breath  
of support that WebEx offers represents an investment in remote  
meeting services on par with running brick and mortar conference  
centers.  Once members become familiar with remote meeting services,  
an effort might be undertaken to explore suitable suites of  
applications that could act as alternatives.  After all, the IETF  
should have the synergy for such an effort.

Nevertheless, don't expect replacements offering similar productivity  
will not also demand similar additional resources.   As such, remote  
participation aided by remote meeting services beyond streaming audio- 
feeds and jabber sessions is likely to necessitate minor offset fees.   
For many, these remote participation fees will be in lieu of  
substantial air and hotel arrangements, and lost time due to traveling.

-Doug

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:07:57 -0700

The basic model is the person organizing the meeting pays.  That could be
either flat rate in the case individual or basic accounts up to order of
about .45 cents a minute per person for something where you avail youself of
all the options.

On Apr 16, 2009 1:18 PM, "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Thomas

_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list
operates according to http://mi...

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:01:12 -0400

Doug Otis wrote:
> WebEx is no different from the meeting rooms needed to conduct meetings 
> and appears to support a wide range of clients.  

It is different, but like those other things it isn't free.
Which brings up a question.

Right now it costs individual participants money to
attend in person - registration fees, travel costs,
hotels, etc.  But remote partipation costs are picked
up by the organization, which pays for audio streaming
and to provide Jabber server maintenance.  I've certainly
taken advantage of the free stuff and appreciated it a
lot, and I think it helps keep the IETF relatively
open.  Is free remote participation something that the
organization wants to preserve?

Melinda

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:54:04 -0700

> openness where everyone/anyone can participate?

1. The focus, now, is try to find out what technologies and services are 
available and understand how they work, rather than to choose one.  If we get to 
the point of having multiple choices, where pricing is the primary 
discriminator, we'll be in excellent shape.

2. This effort is in the context of trying to replace face-to-face meetings. 
Between flights, hotels, meeting fees, etc., attendance of an IETF face-to-face 
meeting is multiple thousands of dollars.  Later, when we start to consider 
choosing among competing alternatives, I hope that the baseline of meeting 
attendance cost is used for evaluating our choices.

3.  We haven't had very many choices put forward.  I hope we do get more.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:28:30 -0400

> 3.  We haven't had very many choices put forward.  I hope we do get  

There are many offerings in this general space:

- yuuguu.com

- elluminate

- GoToMeeting

- Yugma

- DimDim

- Adobe Connect

Henning

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:56:05 -0400

Cisco has donated WebEx to the IETF.  The only cost to a participant 
should be associated with dial-in phone charges if the participant 
cannot use VoIP or Skype or the US/Canada 1-800 number.

Russ

At 10:01 PM 4/16/2009, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>meetings and appears to support a wide range of clients.
>

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:13:55 -0700

> cannot use VoIP or Skype or the US/Canada 1-800 number.

If Webex is already the conference tool of the IETF, what is the
purpose of this mailing-list?

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [email-masked]
Work: [email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:23:59 -0600

> purpose of this mailing-list?

As far as I can see, the phrase "Cisco has donated WebEx to the IETF"
(so that IETF participants can use it free of charge) does not imply
that "WebEx is already the conference tool of the IETF".

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:04:47 -0700

> There are many offerings in this general space:

The Yuuguu web page lists the tool as supporting "screen sharing and instant 
messaging service".  While this is not sufficient for emulating a face2face 
meeting, it does have its uses.

Does anyone have experience with Yuuguu?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:12:44 -0400

We used it yesterday for a demonstration and presentation among  
multiple systems (Mac, Windows), and it worked well. No software needs  
to be installed on the viewer side and software installation on the  
presenter side was minimal. The functionality is clearly more limited  
than WebEx (no "hand raising", for example).

I think it would be useful to have a set of requirements spelled out,  
both MUST and NICE TO HAVE (a new 2119 category).

Henning

On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> The Yuuguu web page lists the tool as supporting "screen sharing and  
> instant messaging service".  While this is not sufficient for  
> emulating a face2face meeting, it does have its uses.
>

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:13:02 -0700

> There are many offerings in this general space:
...
> - GoToMeeting

    <http://gotomeeting.com>

The feature-set is listed at:

    <https://www1.gotomeeting.com/en_US/pre/features.tmpl>

and includes:

> • Share Keyboard and Mouse Control: Securely collaborate on documents in real
> time.
> 
> • Instantly Change Presenters: Enable any participant to present to the
> entire group.
> 
> • Drawing Tools: Draw, highlight and point to items of interest right on the
> screen.
> 
> • Desktop Recording and Playback: Record meetings to review or share later.
> 
> • Specific Application Sharing: For added privacy, share only the application
> you choose. • Integration: Access GoToMeeting through Microsoft® Office®,
> email or instant-messaging applications.
> 
> • Mac® Support: Mac users can host and join GoToMeeting sessions.
> 
> • Reporting: Get detailed reports for trend analysis and ROI validation.
> 
> • Total Audio: Choose integrated free phone conferencing, VoIP or both.

Does anyone have any experience with GoToMeeting?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:58 -0700

> that "WebEx is already the conference tool of the IETF".

+1

1. A limited set of IETF folks have experience with it.  IMO, we need broader 
exposure of a tool before deciding on its use.  The session a week from today is 
intended to help that.

2. It is not clear whether it can or cannot satisfy the IETF's functional 
requirements, since we haven't said what they are yet.

3. We haven't compared it against other choices.  (I could be wrong, but my 
impression is that the donation is not unbounded in time and scale.  I thought 
it was for an evaluation period, but I might have misunderstood.)

4. "Free" isn't good enough if the use of the capability falls short.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:22:02 -0700

...
> - Yugma

    <https://www.yugma.com/>

Feature set:

    <https://www.yugma.com/products/product_tour.php>

>  Yugma Features  	Yugma Pro
>   Number of attendees that a Yugma Host can invite 	20, 50, 100, 500
>   Desktop Sharing 	Included
>   Free Teleconferencing 	Included
>   Public and Private Chat 	Included
>   Customizable Widget 	Included
>   Windows, Mac and Linux compatible 	Included
>   Skype Integration 	Included
>   Share Mouse & Keyboard controls with other attendees 	Included
>   Change Presenter 	Included
>   Annotations & Whiteboarding Tools 	Included
>   Schedule Meetings 	Included
>   Meeting Recording & Playback 	Included
>   Shared File Space

Does anyone have any experience using Yugma?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:28:32 -0700

...
> - DimDim

    <http://www.dimdim.com/>

> Dimdim lets anyone deliver synchronized live presentations, whiteboards and
> web pages and share their voice and video

Features:

    <http://www.dimdim.com/products/dimdim_features.html>

including:

> #  Easy Share Screens & Webpages # Audio & Video Conferencing # Present
> PowerPoint and PDFs # Private & Public Chat # Whiteboard & Annotations #
> Record and Embed Meetings # Open Source and Open APIs

Does anyone have any experience using DimDim?

d/

ps.  I hope their features and usability choices are brighter than their product 
name...

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:29:41 -0600

> Does anyone have any experience using DimDim?

No, but I know some of the developers (they use XMPP somehow).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:34:15 -0700

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 1. A limited set of IETF folks have experience with it.  IMO, we need
> broader exposure of a tool before deciding on its use.  The session a
> week from today is intended to help that.
>
> 2. It is not clear whether it can or cannot satisfy the IETF's
> functional requirements, since we haven't said what they are yet.
>
> 3. We haven't compared it against other choices.  (I could be wrong, but
> my impression is that the donation is not unbounded in time and scale.
> I thought it was for an evaluation period, but I might have misunderstood.)

If the donation is not unbounded then I withdraw my question.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:35:02 +0200

> Does anyone have any experience with GoToMeeting?

I'm using it for skype conferences to view a remote screen for live tech
demos etc.  It can record screens easily, and one can see who is present
etc.  It was java based, but worked anyway. ;)

/Simon

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:35:42 -0700

...
> - Adobe Connect

I think this is the right pointer:

    Acrobat Connect Pro
    <http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/?promoid=DJDVR>

Features:

    <http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobatconnectpro/features/>

including:

> share a wide range of content, including Microsoft PowerPoint slides, live
> and recorded video, Adobe Flash® content, live screen sharing, application
> sharing, audio, and multiuser text chat.

Does anyone have any experience using Acrobat Connect?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:45:53 -0700

+1

(I suppose that 'MAY' serves the nice-to-have function, in a requirements spec.)

Fred circulated an initial list of usage modes, from which one can start to 
formulate the functional requirements:

    <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vmeet/current/msg00009.html>

 From a discussion with Fred and Eliot, I suggest the following elaboration:

Goals
-----

Mode Goal = MG

MG-A:  Slight improvement in quality of the experience for existing remote
        participants (current model 'bis')

MC-B:  Remote participants as regular, full participants in a meeting (.0
        upgrade to model; for all sessions)

[MG-x:   Design team collaboration ? ]

MG-C:  Individual virtual session, small scale (30?)

MG-D:  Individual virtual session, large scale (200?)

MG-E:  Suite of simultaneous virtual sessions

MG-F:  Full IETF meeting sequence

Milestones
----------

Document the (required) IETF features for a session

Specify expected/desired functional details for each MG / Revisit periodically
    (but don’t call these ‘requirements’)

Slight improvement in quality of the experience for existing remote participants
    (current model 'bis')

Remote participants as regular, full participants in a meeting (.0 upgrade to
    model; for all sessions)

[Design team collaboration ? ]

Individual virtual session, small scale (30?)

Individual virtual session, large scale (200?)

Suite of simultaneous virtual sessions

Full IETF meeting sequence

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:36:40 -0700

Our eval of dimdim was not terribly favorable, on the face of it, it has
some interesting ideas but it wasn't best of breed.

On Apr 17, 2009 9:29 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:

On 4/17/09 10:28 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Does anyone have any experience
using DimDim?
No, but I know some of the developers (they use XMPP somehow).

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:42:18 -0700

We use it interally. Unsurprisingly, It is flash based. On the client side
it works rather well on my linux system which is something of a rarity.
By-directional audio is done via a pstn conference bridge.

On Apr 17, 2009 9:35 AM, "Dave CROCKER" <[email-masked]> wrote:

...

  Acrobat Connect Pro

Features:

including:

d/
-- 

 Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:48:30 +0200

On 4/17/09 7:42 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> We use it interally. Unsurprisingly, It is flash based. On the client 
> side it works rather well on my linux system which is something of a 
> rarity. By-directional audio is done via a pstn conference bridge.
>

For next week's test of Webex this is what people can expect.  You'll 
have a phone in your ear for most of it.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:12:21 -0400

>purpose of this mailing-list?

Cisco has made this offer.  I expect it will be used.  Maybe there 
are better (with many potential criteria) alternatives.  If so, I 
hope this group identifies them.

Russ

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:42:21 -0400

There's probably a common set of minimal requirements:

- Clients (remote participants) can be Windows 2000/XP/Vista, MacOS,  
Linux.

- Presenting systems can be some subset thereof (may not need Win2K,  
for example).

- Ability to render PowerPoint and PDF MUST, OpenOffice SHOULD.

- For audio, allow VoIP and PSTN dial-in (800# is MAY).

- Ability to mute remote participants (e.g., to deal with someone's  
music-on-hold system)

- Audio recording

Nice-to-have:

- Audio MAY: speaker indication (who is talking)

- Pass ability to "drive" slides to any participant.

- Annotate slides in real time (highlighter, overlay text).

- Text chat (already have Jabber chat rooms)

- Hand raising to claim microphone spot ("floor control")

Henning

On Apr 17, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>> I think it would be useful to have a set of requirements spelled  
>> out, both MUST and NICE TO HAVE (a new 2119 category).
>
> +1
>
> Fred circulated an initial list of usage modes, from which one can  
> start to formulate the functional requirements:
>

---

From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:21:08 +0200

I realised we're all using this message's subject line, whilst Friday 
will be the 24th of April.

Also - time-wise, we're also going to have to tighten this:

Dave writes:

> We're going to conduct a real-world experiment, using webex, on 
> Friday, 23 April, at 7am, Pacific Daylight Time.
>

Nope. :-)  Europe's now on Summer Time. You are quoting CET which only 
works in the winter.
London's at BST = UTC+1
Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. are on CEST = UTC+2

I just thought I'd send this note out after suffering two e-meetings 
today where some people got confused, arriving too early or too late 
depending on who lead the meeting...

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:28:52 -0700

> will be the 24th of April.

That's why I had to quickly sent out:

Subject: Oops -- Re: [vmeet] Apr 23^H^H24  webex group experiment
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:19 -0400
From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
...
Very sorry.  I did mean Friday and therefore meant *24* April (not 23).

> Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. are on CEST = UTC+2

The US Pacific time is the anchor.  That means that the other US times are 
correct and I believe the UTC is correct also.  And it's why I cited UTC rather 
than UK, GB or somesuch.  However I wasn't sure about daylight savings for 
Europe. Thanks for catching this.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:37:37 -0700

> - Ability to mute remote participants (e.g., to deal with someone's  

WebEx breaks this down to Host, Presenters, and Attendees.

Attendees are muted by default, and Presenters control the display  
once control is passed to them by the Host or other Presenters.

People located within the meeting room will not use of the Remote  
Meeting application as a means to listen.  This would create an  
extreme annoyance when local participants are speaking due to even  
slight audio delays.  Those in the room will likely listen to the  
output of the room's PA system which does not have noticeable delay.   
The audio from the PA system can be input into a Net-Box system deemed  
as an unmuted Presenter for remote participants to hear the audio.   
When it comes time to listen to external participants, they will need  
to be informed (perhaps by seeing they are not muted) AND at the same  
time, having the output of the Net-Box enabled as a feed into the PA  
system.  Enabling the output of the Net-Box only when a remote  
participant is talking will allow the room to hear remote participants  
comments or questions.

> - Hand raising to claim microphone spot ("floor control")

Polling system to allow participation in Hums.

Slide presentation Control.

Tokens indicating who has control.

-Doug

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:31:24 +0200

> - Ability to render PowerPoint and PDF MUST, OpenOffice SHOULD.

This may have been covered before when I didn't pay attention, but is
there any thoughts going into issues like:

- Use IETF standard protocol between server and clients a SHOULD

  - For example, for chat, we should encourage XMPP for chat

  - This also allows implementations on any systems, not just
    Win/Mac/Linux

- Support of open standards like OpenOffice documents preferred over
  closed standards like PowerPoint?

> - Ability to mute remote participants (e.g., to deal with someone's

Definitely!  A system to be able to identify whom is causing the most
noise on the channel is useful in identifying which participants to
mute.

> - Audio recording

What about video recording of the screen presentation?

/Simon

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:13:36 -0400

Uh, probably you skipped several steps.

First of all, it's not clear that we're using WebEx's VoIP audio system.
The test doesn't, right?  That mute control stuff only works from the VoIP
audio system I believe.

Then, the room audio, if it's fed into any bridge, is going to need a pretty
fancy echo cancellation box to deal with the room PA with multiple mics.
The basic echo cancel you get from a conference bridge probably can't handle
that.  You also probably need a better automatic gain control than you get
from the bridge.

Then we're skating around the issue of who is running the WebEX UI, unmuting
participants, ....  We currently have two jobs that have a volunteer, plus
chairs usually are running slides.  I'm not sure we can round up yet another
volunteer, and I'm not sure I want a chair doing more work.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Doug Otis
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 6:38 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] PLAN: Formulating a workplan for vMeet

-Doug

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:50:57 -0700

On Apr 19, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> First of all, it's not clear that we're using WebEx's VoIP audio  
> system. The test doesn't, right?  That mute control stuff only works  
> from the VoIP audio system I believe.

The issue of input audio affects those presenting, or for those asking  
questions (perhaps via voice mail??).  WebEx Event client does not  
support VoIP for MACs, for example.  The Event client can handle up to  
3000 participants, so the alternative to VoIP for a presenter would be  
to use a phone at $.20/minute.  VoIP is limited to 500 participants,  
although for the Event client 3000 participants can listen.  At most 7  
microphones can be active, 6 + host. A teleconference can allow as  
many as 125 users to have speaking privileges, with 375 listening only  
for 500 total.

> Then, the room audio, if it's fed into any bridge, is going to need  
> a pretty fancy echo cancellation box to deal with the room PA with  
> multiple mics. The basic echo cancel you get from a conference  
> bridge probably can't handle that.  You also probably need a better  
> automatic gain control than you get from the bridge.

WebEx provides the phone bridge, but it seems voice mail might be  
required to facilitate remote participant question queues.

> Then we're skating around the issue of who is running the WebEX UI,  
> unmuting participants, ....  We currently have two jobs that have a  
> volunteer, plus chairs usually are running slides.  I'm not sure we  
> can round up yet another volunteer, and I'm not sure I want a chair  
> doing more work.

The host would likely be one of the meeting chairs, which does not  
seem like an undue burden for them to select who is presenting.   
Control can be passed by presenters.  The level of flexibility changes  
between Meeting and Events clients.  It would appear that most  
Meetings will need to be limited to 500 participants, and that larger  
meetings will suffer from less compatible clients.

When considering that a Net-Box attached to a digital projector and  
the room PA can join an entire room with the meeting, this can scale  
beyond the 500/3000 participant limits.  WebEx offers some remote  
system controls, so special clients might be used by meeting chairs to  
enable and disable the Net-Box audio output when there is a need to  
enable a remote participant's ability to speak.

-Doug

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:02:56 -0400

Someone must have solved the audio problem we're looking at, although it
would not be the WebEx audio client.  If not, we have work to do, but it's
applied engineering and not research.  It's a mix of in room, multiple mic,
plus the remote participants.  I've never seen it done well, but someone
must have solved the problems.

I'm not as enthused as you are to get chairs to run the WebEx session.  I
know when I'm running a meeting, it's nearly all I can do to run the slides
("Next Slide Please") as well as do real chairing.  It might be different if
everyone was on WebEx, but when you are chairing the live meeting, you don't
look at the screen much.  It's possible, but it's not great.

I do think we ought to concentrate on the regular work group meeting, and
not deal with the plenaries yet.  That puts us within the kind of range we
should easily be able to handle with the tools we are discussing.  If we can
get good WG meeting tools, we can extend to good plenary tools.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Otis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:51 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Henning Schulzrinne'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] PLAN: Formulating a workplan for vMeet

-Doug

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:50:21 -0700

On Apr 20, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Someone must have solved the audio problem we're looking at,  
> although it would not be the WebEx audio client.

Agreed.  The Meeting client is limited to 500 participants and does  
not support audio broadcasts.  However, the IETF already broadcasts  
the PA audio.

>  If not, we have work to do, but it's applied engineering and not  
> research.  It's a mix of in room, multiple mic, plus the remote  
> participants.  I've never seen it done well, but someone must have  
> solved the problems.

Don't think this will be much of an issue.  Need to work on developing  
utilities to allow remote participants to be heard within the room  
using a dedicated client.

> I'm not as enthused as you are to get chairs to run the WebEx  
> session.  I know when I'm running a meeting, it's nearly all I can  
> do to run the slides ("Next Slide Please") as well as do real  
> chairing.  It might be different if everyone was on WebEx, but when  
> you are chairing the live meeting, you don't look at the screen  
> much.  It's possible, but it's not great.

With WebEx, the presenters control their own sides and pass control.   
IMHO, WebEx should be continuously projected by a Net-Box attached to  
the projector.  There are standard brackets for attaching the Net-Box.

> I do think we ought to concentrate on the regular work group  
> meeting, and not deal with the plenaries yet.

A hybrid approach could handle both environments fairly well.    
Unfortunately, the Event client is somewhat OS limited at this time. :^(

>  That puts us within the kind of range we should easily be able to  
> handle with the tools we are discussing.  If we can get good WG  
> meeting tools, we can extend to good plenary tools.

Agreed.

-Doug

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:04:10 -0400

I've tried two ways of running a meeting with a mix of in person and WebEx
participants.

One way is that there is one computer, and it drives both the projector and
the WebEx client.  The "presenter" (person at the mic giving the
presentation) doesn't run the computer, the chair does.  This is not a great
solution, because if the chair needs to manipulate the meeting, the in room
attendees see what he is doing.

The other way is that there are two computers.  One is the chair's, it has a
WebEx client, running the slide presentation (using "share application").
The other computer is running a WebEx client, as a participant and drives
the projector.  That way, the people in the room see the same thing as a
remote participant.  

The latter works better IMO.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Otis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'Henning Schulzrinne'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [vmeet] PLAN: Formulating a workplan for vMeet

Agreed.

-Doug

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:14:21 -0700

On Apr 20, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> The other way is that there are two computers.  One is the chair's,  
> it has a WebEx client, running the slide presentation (using "share  
> application"). The other computer is running a WebEx client, as a  
> participant and drives the projector.  That way, the people in the  
> room see the same thing as a remote participant.

The Asus Eee Box N202 (N270 Atom 1.6GHz) On-board Intel GMA 950, 1600  
x 1200 maximum resolution with US MSRP of $269 for 1GB memory + 80GB  
HDD Linux edition might be a device to satisfy this mode of operation.

IT staff could ensure each Net-Box joins WebEx sessions for the room  
using either RDP or VNC, with the audio input is connected to the  
room's PA. There would also be a need to control to selectively enable  
the Net-Box output as an input to the PA.

The Net-Box has been designed to be attached to a display using a Vesa  
standard mount.  This mounting shelf could be used to attach these  
small devices to the projectors.   Cable locks could be used instead  
of or in addition to the mounting shelf.

-Doug

---

From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:21:31 +0200

"Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> it has a

+1

And for larger meetings, both computers are run by a third party 
because the Chair's too busy to be fiddling with a computer.
At larger ICANN meetings, for example, panellists need to give any 
presentation material and its order in the agenda to a data team in 
charge of visuals 20 minutes before the session starting time.
5 minutes before session starting time, the scribe checks all 
panellist names.
Panellists only have a small wireless device to control the slides.
Any interaction with the outside world is done by another person, 
sometimes a volunteer found at the last minute, either onstage, or 
someone in the audience who will ask questions on behalf of people 
online. Many people Tweet.

O.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:40:25 -0400

> Does anyone have any experience using Acrobat Connect?

ICANN uses it and is thinks enough of it that it may try to have it be
the technology of choice for remote participation. I will see if I can
get someone with direct knowledge to comment.

Thomas