Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Leah:

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:23, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>
> >
> > >  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
> >
> > Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with
> > organizations, who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
> > the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this
> > process doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

> I do not think that ICANN is the relevant source for provision of
> internet infrastructure for all persons and we could go way out of
> bounds using that assumption.

I inferred what you are saying in my previous e-mail  Yes...I am agree,
providing or ensuring
internet access is outside the scope of ICANN.  Howevert ICANN should be
sensible to this...maybe by
using remote participations tools that can be used in low bandwith
connections, for example.  And they are doing it already.

> For those who cannot access the www, there is IRC chat
> participation  It is not perfect, but anyone with a modem
> connection can get at least chat and scribe notes.  For those more
> fortunate, there is audio/video webcasting which at least allows
> those with a 56k connection access in real time and/or archived
> replays.

I must say that ICANN already provide both tools for remote
participation.
Of course, over a 56Kbps, the video string is impossible to see, but the
audio is good.
The main issue here is that ICANN is doing already.  So, they are
sensible to the situation of many people that cannot attend meetings
and/or having low bandwith.

> IMO, it would be just wonderful if governments and other
> organizations could and would provide better infrastructure to users
> and other stakeholders so that literally anyone who is interested
> could participate in webcast meetings.  However, I would not go as
> far as to expect that ICANN is the means for this provision.

The same.  When I said "we must work together with organizations even
with government" was talking about us as individuals and organizations
in our countries.

> I also believe that ICANN should provide webcasts of more of the
> meetings than they do at this time and not allow private meetings
> at all.  The so's meetings should be covered - any agenda meeting,
> for that matter, IMO, at least in audio/chat.  That way, all
> stakeholders would have the opportunity to participate in all
> aspects of the ICANN process.

ICANN do this already for GA meeting, NC meetings, ICANN Board meeting,
Public Forum.

Constiuencies are responsible for pay and/or provide means for remote
participation.   I am glad to tell you that the Non-Commercial DOmain
Names Holders Constituency is providing since Melbourne meetings remote
participation in our F2F meetings.   ICANN kindly let us use their
conectivity and with my laptop plus some audio equipment I have achieved
remote participation in audio and video over the Internet.   You will
see soon the announcement for our meeting in Montevideo.
The best is that the only cost some times is the audio equipment to hire
in the rooms...However, thanks to kind contributors, this hasn't be a
problem.  Now for Montevideo, the audio equipment is included in the
room costs, for example.

Best Regards

Vany

--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html