<html>
<body>
My recollection is that in response to an ongoing suggestion that we meet
in hub cities, and the frustration of having to meet only in cities where
a host has volunteered with a viable proposal, the Board Public
Participation committee recommended that ICANN would consider both hosted
cities as well as cities selected by ICANN itself and then select what is
believed to be the best location for each meeting.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 25/01/2011 12:05 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The question is, assuming you
were right, why did San Francisco get chosen at all?<br>
<br>
Was there no other locations that had local hosts?<br>
<br>
<b>Adrian Kinderis</b><br><br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca
[<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan
Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adrian Kinderis<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings<br>
<br>
ok. My mistake. Alan<br><br>
At 24/01/2011 05:45 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:<br><br>
That is not true Alan.<br><br>
There have been a number of meetings where there have been no formal
major local host.<br><br>
Sydney springs to mind.<br><br>
Thanks.<br><br>
Adrian<br><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
On 25/01/2011, at 9:35, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
I have no inside information, but the issue came up a while ago in
At-Large, and it struck me then that this may be a result of this being
(I think) the first meeting without a major local host, who previously
was expected to provide significant resources.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 24/01/2011 03:39 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br><br>
I see no reason why this could not be discussed here.<br><br>
Is there anyone from Staff that can address Adrian's questions?<br><br>
As far as the Council taking a position on this, what do others think? Is
there a desire to work on drafting a letter on this topic?<br><br>
Stéphane<br><br>
Le 23 janv. 2011 à 09:49, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :<br><br>
<br>
Stephane,<br>
<br>
I am not sure of the correct forum to bring this up however I do so
here…<br>
<br>
I havve been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding the
severe raising of pricing of the sponsorship packages for the upcoming
San Francisco meeting.<br>
<br>
In most cases prices within the different levels of sponsorship packages
have doubled and it seem that ICANN is trying to secure a few sponsors at
$500,000. This seems, to me at least, just plain crazy!<br>
<br>
My organization has sponsored on a number of occasions and are
potentially again this time. However I am concerned of these changes and
the impact they may have.<br>
<br>
The reason I bring it up in this forum is because I wonder if this is
something the Council could take a position of. We all benefit from a
healthy participation of sponsors. Without them the meetings would not
exist. However, I believe ICANN is being just plain greedy and this could
potentially harm future meetings.<br>
<br>
Your thoughts would be appreciated.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Adrian Kinderis</b><br><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>