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

[Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

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