[council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jan 25 14:41:32 UTC 2011


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.

Alan


At 25/01/2011 12:05 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>The question is, assuming you were right, why 
>did San Francisco get chosen at all?
>
>Was there no other locations that had local hosts?
>
>Adrian Kinderis
>
>
>From: alan.greenberg at sympatico.ca 
>[mailto:alan.greenberg at sympatico.ca] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:15 AM
>To: Adrian Kinderis
>Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings
>
>ok. My mistake. Alan
>
>At 24/01/2011 05:45 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>
>That is not true Alan.
>
>There have been a number of meetings where there 
>have been no formal major local host.
>
>Sydney springs to mind.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Adrian
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 25/01/2011, at 9:35, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
>Alan
>
>At 24/01/2011 03:39 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
>I see no reason why this could not be discussed here.
>
>Is there anyone from Staff that can address Adrian's questions?
>
>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?
>
>Stéphane
>
>Le 23 janv. 2011 à 09:49, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :
>
>
>Stephane,
>
>I am not sure of the correct forum to bring this up however I do so here

>
>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.
>
>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!
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Your thoughts would be appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Adrian Kinderis
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110125/eda6411c/attachment.html>


More information about the council mailing list