doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 1 WG Improvement Suggestions – Web Conferencing Date: Authors:

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 2 Abstract During the January Interim Session, a request to investigate ways for improvement to WG operations and procedures was made. During the March Plenary Session a report of several suggestions was presented, and a discussion on possible improvements was begun. Topics of high priority were: Improve remote meetings to a point where they can be substituted for venue meetings Reduce meeting expenses –Reduce the number of meetings per year –Reduce venue costs –Change meetings to teleconference / electronic This presentation looks at one of the promising suggestions: “Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment queuing.”

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 3 Topic 3: Change the method of Conducting meetings and Voting Bullet 4: Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment queuing Summary: –Effectiveness of tool in supporting/improving electronic meetings Auditioned available tools –Many tools could be useful –Many tools do some of what is required, but no tool was universally complete. –Ease of use across broad variety of situations users & platforms Learning curve will be required User tolerance of implemented use case –Costs to provide tools

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 4 Required Features / Comparison Criteria Common Presentation Remote Control Sharing Application Sharing Documents Polling/Voting Authenticated User Remote Editing Easy Sign-on web/audio Audio Bridge Audio Price Web Conference Price

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 5 Survey of Web Collaboration programs –Tools that were reviewed: Current distributed methods WebEx MeetingZone Microsoft LiveMeeting GoToMeeting Glance Yugma DimDim

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 6 Audio & Web Conference Costs Audio Bridge and Web Conference tools have cost Currently that cost is covered by generous sponsors Toll-Free Numbers call-in is actually a higher cost than if the number used is a nominal number. If 10 people call in on a bridge using a “Toll-Free” number, the cost to the bridge provider can be several times higher than if non-Toll-Free number is used.

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 7 Cost Models Per port vs. per person –Multiple calls – cap on port+person Pay as you go –Multiple calls – cap on participants Monthly/Annual agreements –Per host license – serial calls – cap on participants

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 8 What might it cost? Pay as you go, overlapping sessions allowed. If the average cost per minute Audio is.10 If the average cost per minute Web is.18 April 2009 might have cost about $8, –Audio bridge cost $3120 –Web conference cost $ Monthly Average per person attending = $ Monthly Average cost per voting member = $35.23

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 9 How do we cover the cost? Gifts? Donations? Continue to rely on generous sponsors –Request more web tool sponsors Add a surcharge to meeting fees –Joint Treasury issue Use less feature rich tools that have lower or no costs

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 10 When can we start experimenting/using? Before fully committing… Could we set up a large scale experiment with one one TG –TGmb is using web conferencing tools –Some of the TGn proposal teams used web tools After choosing a finance scheme how long would it take to turning on a full service system?

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 11 References List of Improvement Suggestions: – plenary-information-mar-09.ppthttps://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/09/ plenary-information-mar-09.ppt WikiPedia Comparison of Web conference tools: – ftwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_conferencing_so ftware

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 12 Backup Slides

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 13 Audio Conferencing “The most popular of all collaboration services. Typically provided by a service provider, audio conferencing services “bridge” or connect three or more parties together via a common telephone number. …. Price per participant average 8 pence per minute or £4.80 per participant, per hour (often less than a journey by train or the cost of petrol in travelling to a meeting — significantly less than an airline ticket). Nearly 3 billion minutes of audio conferencing will be used in the UK during 2007.” “Using Conferencing and Collaboration to Reach Carbon Neutrality” Aug 2007, by Wainhouse Research White Paper

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 14 Web Conferencing Typically via an invitation, the meeting presenter will provide a URL (a web page address) where all meeting participants “join” the presentation. The presenter then shares a slide presentation or can present nearly any PC application (financial spreadsheets, project plans, documents, etc). As the presenter changes slides or presents new information, the meeting participants PC screens are automatically updated with the new information. Web conferencing can be provided as a package with audio conferencing or as a separate service to be used in conjunction with the audio service. Prices range from a nominal cost when packaged with audio conferencing, to up to 12 pence per minute when provided separately. “Using Conferencing and Collaboration to Reach Carbon Neutrality” Aug 2007, by Wainhouse Research White Paper

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 15 Wikipedia Comparisons Wikipedia includes a survey of programs –Client platforms, license, upload capabilities, audio, video, chat, capacity, mobile device, and break-out.

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 16 Topic #1 Reduce meeting expenses –Reduce the number of meetings per year –Reduce venue costs –Change meetings to teleconference / electronic Synchronize IEEE and WFA meeting venues Delete interims, keep only plenaries Reduce venue cost, location, food Reduce the need to attend every session - Selectively drop TG activities from meetings Reduce the need to send as many people to a session - Fewer parallel sessions Charge separately for social Meeting frequency; Fewer but longer meetings Many of our organizations are going through reductions in force and travel budgets

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 17 Topic #2 Improve Standards Production Process –Process Improvement –Shorten times to publication –Increase face to face time Face to face meetings provide significant value especially during project formation/start-up TG attendance too small Project completion takes too long Amendments contain useless features Bring in running code before beginning standardization 802 needs to at least think about the possibility of evolving past the RF centric MAC/PHY ; start an End-to-End Study Group Establish a task force to monitor the progress of active task groups and suggest improvements

doc.: IEEE /0544r0 Submission May 2009 Jon Rosdahl, CSRSlide 18 Topic #3 Change the method of Conducting meetings and Voting –Improve remote meetings to a point where they can be substituted for venue meetings –Enable voting without attending a face to face Instate Voting during TG telecons Instate TG membership Beginning ballots not initiated during a face to face meeting Use of web tools for document sharing, polling, voting, comment queuing Use Entity voting No loss of voting rights due to lack of attendance if job is lost Drop 15 day procedural review of ballot prior to technical ballot on draft Voting required to maintain voting rights How is Online voting audited Don’t use telecons because of disadvantages due to time shift and language Copy the IETF mode of operation. Don’t rely on either face-to-face or telecons; just use .