RE: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay 21 september

["John Crain" <crain@icann.org>]

Hi Andrew, Roger,

The actuall full cost of the broadcast will be about $45k over the three
days (15k per day).
Some of the cost is for infrastructure that we need for other things any way
so $10k
seems like a reasonable share.

Having looked at getting a commericial body to do the same work I deduced
that $45k for this is an absolute bargain:)

John
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew McLaughlin [mailto:mclaughlin@pobox.com]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 4:46 AM
To: R.Gaetano@iaea.org
Cc: crain@icann.org; touton@icann.org; mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us;
council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay 21
september


As in Yokohama, the DNSO's fair share for a full day of webcasting will be
$10,000.  The actual cost of the webcasting will actually be higher in LA
than in Yokohama, because ICANN will have to provide all the equipment
itself, rather than relying on a local host committee.

--andrew

[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
[ R.Gaetano@iaea.org
[ Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 3:09 AM
[ To: erica.roberts@telstra.com; kstubbs@revenue.com;
[ Paul.Kane@reacto.com; yjpark@myepark.com
[ Cc: mclaughlin@pobox.com; vandrome@renater.fr;
[ Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr; crain@icann.org; touton@icann.org;
[ mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us; council@dnso.org
[ Subject: RE: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay 21
[ september
[
[
[ $10K is probably an upper limit figure.
[ I wonder whether a Webcast in the US will not be cheaper than in Japan.
[ RG
[
[ > -----Original Message-----
[ > From: erica.roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@telstra.com]
[ > Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2000 22:52
[ > To: Ken Stubbs; Paul M. Kane; YJ Park
[ > Cc: mclaughlin@pobox.com; Dany Vandromme; Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; John
[ > Crain; Louis Touton; Mike Roberts; names council; GAETANO, Roberto
[ > Subject: RE: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay 21
[ > september
[ >
[ >
[ > As you may recall, M-IT paid for the last NC meeting web
[ > cast.  The cost was
[ > $US10,000.
[ >
[ > erica
[ >
[ > >===== Original Message From "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@revenue.com> =====
[ > >cant be done that day as icann staff & key board members are
[ > meeting with
[ > >cctld administrators in late afternoon. this is why the
[ > schedule has been
[ > >compressed to the times i proposed
[ > >
[ > >ken
[ > >
[ > >----- Original Message -----
[ > >From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
[ > >To: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>
[ > >Cc: <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; "Ken Stubbs"
[ > <kstubbs@corenic.org>; "Elisabeth
[ > >PORTENEUVE" <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>; "Dany Vandromme"
[ > ><vandrome@renater.fr>; "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>;
[ > "names council"
[ > ><council@dnso.org>; "roberto gaetano" <R.Gaetano@iaea.org>;
[ > "Mike Roberts"
[ > ><mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>; "John Crain" <crain@icann.org>
[ > >Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 9:19 AM
[ > >Subject: Re: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay
[ > 21 september
[ > >
[ > >
[ > >> Hello Paul and all,
[ > >>
[ > >> It appears things move here.:-)
[ > >> Thanks a lot, Ken and Paul.
[ > >>
[ > >> > We need a costing and I have asked John Crain for the
[ > price for the
[ > >> > Webcasting. NSI have kindly agreed to sponsor the web
[ > cast SUBJECT to
[ > >> > obtaining an acceptable costing from ICANN/Berkman. If
[ > the costs are
[ > >> > toooooo great we will need additional sponsors and your offer of
[ > >> > assistance is most appreciated YJ. I hope John will be
[ > able to come back
[ > >> > to us/Roger within a day or two so we can put this issue
[ > to behind us.
[ > >> > Thanks Roger for helping out.....
[ > >>
[ > >> This sounds we almost fixed the dnso web cast decision for LA.
[ > >> As you suggested here, I will be happy to get additional sponsors
[ > >> in asia subject to the funding update by John and Roger.
[ > >>
[ > >> > For future meetings it may be a good idea to set-up a
[ > "fund" for remote
[ > >> > participation costs so we don't have this predicament at each
[ > >> > meeting....
[ > >>
[ > >> If nc's exsiting budget committee can come up with a
[ > long-term plan,
[ > >> this would be a good starting point to discuss and finalise it,
[ > >> hopely until LA meeting.
[ > >>
[ > >> > As for the room allocation. I have volunteered to be the
[ > liaison.....
[ > >> >
[ > >> > Would EACH constituency please advise me of the capacity
[ > of the room,
[ > >> > whether they prefer morning or afternoon, the expected
[ > duration (eg. ??
[ > >> > hours) for their constituency meeting and any "special"
[ >
 facilities
[ > >> > required by their constituency for the meeting.
[ > >>
[ > >> Thanks for your volunteer.
[ > >> --------------------------------------------------------
[ > >> Non-Commercial Domain Name Holder's Constituency
[ > >> --------------------------------------------------------
[ > >> Date: 2000. 11. 13. Monday
[ > >> Place: Marriot(?)
[ > >> --------------------------------------------------------
[ > >> Expected attendees: 60 - 70 (?)
[ > >> Expected time: 9:00 - 18:00
[ > >> Expected facilities: 4 - 5 microphones, LCD Projector
[ > >> --------------------------------------------------------
[ > >> NCC is going to have a teleconference too, however,
[ > >> usually the telephone facility has been provided by ncc itself.
[ > >>
[ > >> If further info is needed, please contact me.
[ > >> Thanks again,
[ > >>
[ > >> YJ
[ > >>
[ > >> > Thanks for your help
[ > >> >
[ > >> > Best
[ > >> >
[ > >> > Paul
[ > >> >
[ > >> > YJ Park wrote:
[ > >> >
[ > >> > > Andrew and NC members,
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > > Please see my attached email of 17 September, which
[ > repeats *two*
[ > >> earlier
[ > >> > > > requests that the Names Council urgently decide (1)
[ > whether to
[ > >webcast
[ > >> the
[ > >> > > > LA DNSO meetings, and, if so, how to pay for it;  and (2) the
[ > >schedule
[ > >> for
[ > >> > > > the LA meetings, and the identity of the scheduling contact.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > I have been a bit confused on whether web cast issue
[ > was going to be
[ > >> > > discussed
[ > >> > > in the budget committee rather than nc as a whole during the
[ > >> teleconference.
[ > >> > > Since this was tabled due to lack of time, we'd better start to
[ > >clarify
[ > >> each
[ > >> > > member's
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > (1) yes and no to webcast the LA dnso meetings
[ > >> > >      if it turns out yes, let's suggest how to pay for it.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > (2) schedule for the LA meetings and the identity of
[ > the scheduling
[ > >> contact.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> >
[ > >>
[ > --------------------------------------------------------------
[ > ---------
[ > >> > > YJ Park, Non-commercial Constituency
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > (1) Yes.
[ > >> > >       If it is going to be paid by donation by the
[ > companies, I will
[ > >try
[ > >> to
[ > >> > > raise fund
[ > >> > >       among companies in asia area asap. I prefer this option.
[ > >> > >       And if it is going to be paid by each
[ > constituency, ncc is going
[ > >> to
[ > >> > > try to share it.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > (2) I'm going to contact John and Paul as ncc contact
[ > point within 24
[ > >> hrs.
[ > >> >
[ > >>
[ > >>
[ > --------------------------------------------------------------
[ > -----------
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > > If the Names Council does not tomorrow make those
[ > decisions, I will
[ > >> assume
[ > >> > > > that the DNSO will not be meeting in LA, and that no
[ > webcast should
[ > >be
[ > >> > > > arranged.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > Hope it's not too late.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > As I proposed a teleconference on Otc. 5 in the
[ > review-committee,
[ > >> > > another brief teleconference, 20 mins asap might be an
[ > option to wrap
[ > >> this
[ > >> > > up.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > Let's wind this up asap.
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > YJ
[ > >> > >
[ > >> > > > --Andrew
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
[ > >> > > > From: owner-council@dnso.org
[ > [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On
[ > >Behalf
[ > >> Of
[ > >> > > Ken
[ > >> > > > Stubbs
[ > >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:40 PM
[ > >> > > > To: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; Dany Vandromme; Andrew
[ > McLaughlin; Louis
[ > >> Touton;
[ > >> > > > names council
[ > >> > > > Cc: roberto gaetano; Mike Roberts
[ > >> > > > Subject: [council] names council teleconference thurdsay 21
[ > >september
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > for some reason the names council teleconference
[ > which is scheduled
[ > >> for
[ > >> > > > tomorrow has not been posted by elisabeth so here goes
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > date: thurdsay september 21, 2000
[ > >> > > > time: 08:00 usa eastern time 14:00 cet
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > telephone number
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > Then the dial number will be +33-1-41-74-78-83
[ > >> > > > No passcode is required
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > agenda items:
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > approval of prior meetings minutes
[ > >> > > > budget workgroup report roger & erica
[ > >> > > > dnso review report- theresa
[ > >> > > > financial report from icann staff
[ > >> > > > icann staff report
[ > >> > > > for status on independent  review panel nominations.
[ > >> > > > proxy voting proposal - paul kane
[ > >> > > > business constituancy dues problem
[ > >> > > > intake committee report
[ > >> > > > discussion regarding individual outreach and representation
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > we have a lot to accomplish here and i plan on starting the
[ > >conference
[ > >> on
[ > >> > > > time...
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > repeat.... 08:00 usa eastern time 14:00 CET thursday
[ > 21 september
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > > see you on the call..
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> > > >
[ > >> >
[ > >>
[ >
[ >
[
[