[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] webcasting for DNSO/Santiago Meeting


You wrote:
> On 20 July 1999, Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org> wrote:
> >Mark C. Langston a écrit:
> >> 
> >> The DNSO, as an arm of ICANN, has no right whatsoever to ask those
> >> least able to pay to shoulder their openness burden to cover this
> >> cost when they've spent themselves into a corner.
> >> 

I have read the original message from Theresa over and over again, and could
not find any reference to a specific form of financing.

In fact, she was asking the GA to think of a method of financing.
The response so far is that this method cannot be a fee for people wanting
to participate via Webcast (BTW, other than unfair to the less wealthy, it
will also be impractical to collect).

> <snip>
> This meeting is a meeting of ICANN and the DNSO.  The GA was not
> asked where it would like to meet.  The GA had no say in the selection
> of such a remote location for this meeting.  And unless the DNSO is
> planning on removing members of the GA for failure to pay, you 
> have no power over the GA to demand such a payment.

Remote from where, may I ask?

About the location of the meeting, it has been asked since the beginning of
ICANN by the LatinoAmericans to hold a meeting in that region.
In fact, if you go back to the archives, there was a lot of discussion about
the marginalization of LatinoAmerica and Africa, that, for instance, had no
representative on the initial Board.

Just for the record, may I remind that the same resistance has been shown by
the IFWP to hold a meeting in Buenos Aires (the initial proposal was for
three meetings only, Reston, Geneva, Singapore).
The LatinoAmericans insisted, and organized what has been, from the
organizational and financial POV, the most successful of the series, with
videoconference with Prof. Frankel in Cambridge, simultaneous translation in
three languages, and complete cost-recovery.

> Welcome to your Tea Party.

Either the Internet is meant to be international, and it has to accept to
hold meetings in different part of the worls, or it adopts the US-centric
In the latter case I suspect that the Tea Party may take a different
connotation ;>)