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

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Roberto,

Thanks for your note - I have to agree we need to try. Ben, Andrew, Hiro, is
this still an option at this point with timing?

If so, I guess by default, I'm volunteering to see whether we can get
funding for the webcasting. But I'm volunteering only on the condition that
it's noted I cannot commit the time needed do this alone - others will need
to help out. I'd suggest that Ken, if you agree, you and I work on a
proposal together with Hiro and Roberto. Roberto, we'll need your continued
help to work with the GA on exploring whether funds can be raised there as
well.

Ben - how much do we need? I need a number.

Andrew, what are some places to put in funding proposals to? Markel? Others?

Ken, Hiro, Roberto - will you be able to help work on this?

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto.gaetano@voila.fr]
Sent:	Tuesday, May 02, 2000 7:43 AM
To:	Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc:	h.hotta@hco.ntt.co.jp; council@dnso.org; mclaughlin@pobox.com;
edelman@law.harvard.edu; maruyama@nic.ad.jp; yumi@nic.ad.jp
Subject:	RE: [names] Re: [council] Urgent! : response is required
:ICANNYokohama

Theresa,

>Given this history, seems to me there are only a limited number of
options:
>
>1) Seek funding for webcasting, and do so immediately.
>2) Find another way to cover the cost, as long as functional and done
>quickly. E.g., a meeting room entrance charge (this used to be done at
IFWP
>meetings); or other kind of fee for use of the webcasting. I don't know
 how
>this could function - but throw it out as food for thought.
>3) Not webcast, and deal with the consequences.
>



I like option 1), even if I realize that the most likely is,
unfortunately, option 3).
I have sent a message to the GA, raising the issue, and we will see if
we can raise some funds.
Option 2) is probably not the best way to proceed. It may raise more
problems that it solves, even if it was used in the past (not only at
IFWP, also at ICANN meetings - Singapore '99, for example).

What I would appreciate the NC doing is to look at the problem and to
plan future meetings in a different way.
Most of the criticism I have recently witnessed in association with the
Yokohama meeting is definitively out of place, in particular when
addressed to the local hosts that are doing what is humanly possible,
and maybe more, to do to satisfy all these concurrent, sometimes
conflicting, needs. But lessons should be learned in order to improve in
 the future.

Therefore, may I suggest that, no matter what happens for Yokohama, the
NC addresses the following points:
- planning of the ICANN meetings allowing *at least* two days before the
 ICANN public session to be dedicated to Constituencies meetings, WGs,
GA and NC, possibly with the layout that we used in Cairo, that proved
succesful and satisfactory to everybody;
- fundraising for the Webcast of *at least* GA + NC meetings, not
excluding possibilities like sponsorship: I think that it will be much
better for people to be able to have the Webcast, even with some
advertisement icons, than nothing.

Regards
Roberto