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

Re: [ga] Preliminary report on the NC June 25th meeting

Is this thread about the removal of myself and others from the June
11 teleconference? If so, then what you are saying is untrue. First,
we obviously were not removed because of excessive cost. Second,
there is no question of "listeners" here. I had a more legitimate
right to participate in that teleconference, as an organizer of the
NCDNHC, than many who were welcomed onto it. In this thread, Javier
Sola, Elizabeth Porteneuve, now Antony Van Couvering, and others,
refer to the people who were unjustly disconnected from that
teleconference as "listeners", or "unofficial observers", or as
people who "asked if they could observe". These are lies. I was an
official observer from the Non-Commercial Constituency, recognized
as such by ICANN, negotiating a consensus draft of my constituency
as a representative of the non-commercial domain name holders who
support the principles of the ICIIU. Javier Sola and Theresa
Swinehart had no right, no possible justification, for disconnecting
me from that call, and at the same time allowing people like David
Maher and Randy Bush on it, because they are friends of Sola's.

You keep up this thread in order to justify your illicit actions,
but you're only fooling yourselves. You think that, if you couch
what was done in the right terms, it can be swept under the table.
That's why you have this thread: to look for the the right words to
use to twist the truth. Well, go right ahead and trick yourselves.
No neutral third party, much less a judge in a federal courtroom, is
going to be tricked by your lies.

Elisabeth PORTENEUVE a écrit:
> Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> >
> > Javier,
> >
> > Thanks for this update.  Three questions:
> >
> > 1. Is the reason for not allowing listeners on the NC teleconferences one of
> > cost?  If so, perhaps we could come up with sponsors.  Typically most of the
> > cost is borne by the person phoning in - as I understand it, the cost of
> > adding lines to the bridge is not heavy.  If there is another reason, I
> > would like to understand the rationale.
> >
> ==> Antony,
>     I do not know about teleconference cost in the US, but have some
>     understanding for France.
>     The calling person is charged the telephone fees, which for the
>     international calls (Europe or US) is close to $US 25 per hour.
>     Much more if the number is in AsiaPacific or Africa or LatinACaribbean.
>     The hosting organiser is charged with fees per each caller and
>     per time, and it is not marginal (the exemple I have is approximately
>     $US 10 per caller per hour).
>     There are certainly technical limits about the number of possible
>     callers.
>     If we accept NC teleconferences' listeners, we will certainly
>     give an enormous advantage to the North America, and add an
>     additional burden on the reminding part of the world. I do not
>     think you would like it.
>     Elisabeth