RE: [names] Re: [council] Urgent! : response is required : ICANN Yokohama

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Andrew,

You wrote:

>
>ICANN will be webcasting the ICANN Public Forum and Board meeting on 
the
>15th and 16th of July.  The ICANN tech team (led, as before, by the 
able Ben
>Edelman) will be setting up equipment on July 13 and 14, so that 
meeting
>hall will not be available those two days.  Ben has been working with 
Hiro
>Hotta and Masa Maruyama to keep that meeting room free for tech set-up 
on 13
>and 14 July.
>
>Obviously, we have no objection to some outside party paying for a DNSO

>webcast -- that would clearly be a good thing.  But what you suggest
>(putting all DNSO NC, GA, and ICANN Board meetings into the same room) 
is
>not feasible;  it would involve significant additional cost (and may 
well be
>impossible) for the local organizers to rent the main meeting hall from
 the
>12th, and neither ICANN nor the local hosts will absorb that extra 
cost.
>Moreover, Ben may well be unable or unwilling to do the DNSO webcast
>himself -- the DNSO would have to negotiate an arrangement with Ben or 
hire
>a different contractor.


Ben & his crew know the people already, including the online 
participants, and to start all over with somebody else makes little 
sense if any at all.

>
>In any event, I think that the conference center in Yokohama will 
support a
>webcast in any of its meeting halls.  Perhaps Hiro can confirm that the

>NC/GA meeting hall is suitable for webcasting, in which case a webcast 
would
>be possible in the event that funding can be located.
>


The problem is not "just" the Webcast, but also the management of the 
online comments, and all that jazz.
Moreover, if a different room is used, I assume that we need some setup 
in that room also, that cannot be done in one day only (as noted by Ben)
, multiplying the costs with the multiplication of the rooms.
We need to be practical: either we find (quickly) funds and plan on 
doing every Webcasted meeting in the same room, or we drop the Webcast 
requirement.

BTW, Ben, how much would be the additional cost for GA+NC Webcast, on 
top of what planned already for coverage of ICANN meetings?

Thanks
Roberto



>--Andrew
>
>
>
>
>[ -----Original Message-----
>[ From: owner-names@dnso.org [mailto:owner-names@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
>[ Roberto Gaetano
>[ Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 12:47 PM
>[ To: kstubbs@digitel.net
>[ Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; names@dnso.org; h.hotta@hco.ntt.co.jp
>[ Subject: Re: [names] Re: [council] Urgent! : response is required :
>[ ICANN Yokohama
>[ 
>[ 
>[ Hi.
>[ 
>[ My understanding is slightly different.
>[ 
>[ The vote about the budget only says that the DNSO is not willing to 
>[ "pay" for the Webcast, not that it is "opposed" to Webcast.
>[ 
>[ We should take into account two points:
>[ 1. ICANN may decide to have its meeting Webcast, and therefore we may
 
>[ have equipment (and "equipe", i.e. Berkman Center) available in one 
room
>[  at some point in time.
>[ 2. Some foundations (Ford, Markle, ...) are already funding some 
>[ activities, like the direct participation of people to the meetings. 

>[ They may decide to provide the needed funding for Webcasting (some) 
>[ meeting(s).
>[ 
>[ Let's be clear: I don't think that it is very "likely" that we will 
be 
>[ in a position to do the Webcast, but we will sure look silly if we 
had 
>[ the funding but failed to arrange for other necessary conditions 
(like 
>[ for instance a suitable room).
>[ What I would suggest, assuming that this comes at no additional cost 
for
>[  the organizers, is to have the DNSO/GA, DNSO/NC, ICANN Open, ICANN 
BoD 
>[ sessions in the same room (they happen at different moments), so that
 if
>[  by some myracle we get the money we can have the same coverage as 
other
>[  ICANN meetings.
>[ 
>[ Regards
>[ Roberto
>[ 
>[ 
>[ 
>
>
>
>
>