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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Michael and all,

  I don't believe the concern about cost is a factor, but I will check this
out with some major carrier contacts that I have on monday or tuesday
if possible and notify the list at that time as to methods.  What I can
say is that in the past, I have used Sprint, SBC, and Bell Atlantic
for a temporary international 800# for these sort of conference calls
for non-profit organizations teleconferences.  I am at this moment,
quite sure that some carriers would even provide this service for
this conference call for free or very low cost ($1.20/hour).  So to
use this as an excuse for not allowing anyone that wants to
participate is a bit suspicious at best....

Michael Sondow wrote:

> Is this thread about the removal of myself and others from the June
> 11 teleconference? If so, then what you are saying is untrue. First,
> we obviously were not removed because of excessive cost. Second,
> there is no question of "listeners" here. I had a more legitimate
> right to participate in that teleconference, as an organizer of the
> NCDNHC, than many who were welcomed onto it. In this thread, Javier
> Sola, Elizabeth Porteneuve, now Antony Van Couvering, and others,
> refer to the people who were unjustly disconnected from that
> teleconference as "listeners", or "unofficial observers", or as
> people who "asked if they could observe". These are lies. I was an
> official observer from the Non-Commercial Constituency, recognized
> as such by ICANN, negotiating a consensus draft of my constituency
> as a representative of the non-commercial domain name holders who
> support the principles of the ICIIU. Javier Sola and Theresa
> Swinehart had no right, no possible justification, for disconnecting
> me from that call, and at the same time allowing people like David
> Maher and Randy Bush on it, because they are friends of Sola's.
>
> You keep up this thread in order to justify your illicit actions,
> but you're only fooling yourselves. You think that, if you couch
> what was done in the right terms, it can be swept under the table.
> That's why you have this thread: to look for the the right words to
> use to twist the truth. Well, go right ahead and trick yourselves.
> No neutral third party, much less a judge in a federal courtroom, is
> going to be tricked by your lies.
>
> Elisabeth PORTENEUVE a écrit:
> >
> > 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208