RE: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Right... the extra caveat being that sponsors can expect to pick up the tab?

I don't recall seeing that.

As much as many of you are dismissive of those with commercial interests, 
without their sponsorship and support over the years, ICANN meetings (and 
indeed ICANN) would be a very different experience.

Adrian Kinderis


From: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:42 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings

My recollection is that in response to an ongoing suggestion that we meet in 
hub cities, and the frustration of having to meet only in cities where a host 
has volunteered with a viable proposal, the Board Public Participation 
committee recommended that ICANN would consider both hosted cities as well as 
cities selected by ICANN itself and then select what is believed to be the best 
location for each meeting.

Alan


At 25/01/2011 12:05 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

The question is, assuming you were right, why did San Francisco get chosen at 
all?

Was there no other locations that had local hosts?

Adrian Kinderis


From: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:15 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings

ok. My mistake. Alan

At 24/01/2011 05:45 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

That is not true Alan.

There have been a number of meetings where there have been no formal major 
local host.

Sydney springs to mind.

Thanks.

Adrian

Sent from my iPhone

On 25/01/2011, at 9:35, "Alan Greenberg" 
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:


I have no inside information, but the issue came up a while ago in At-Large, 
and it struck me then that this may be a result of this being (I think) the 
first meeting without a major local host, who previously was expected to 
provide significant resources.

Alan

At 24/01/2011 03:39 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

I see no reason why this could not be discussed here.

Is there anyone from Staff that can address Adrian's questions?

As far as the Council taking a position on this, what do others think? Is there 
a desire to work on drafting a letter on this topic?

Stéphane

Le 23 janv. 2011 à 09:49, Adrian Kinderis a écrit :


Stephane,

I am not sure of the correct forum to bring this up however I do so here...

I havve been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding the severe 
raising of pricing of the sponsorship packages for the upcoming San Francisco 
meeting.

In most cases prices within the different levels of sponsorship packages have 
doubled and it seem that ICANN is trying to secure a few sponsors at $500,000. 
This seems, to me at least, just plain crazy!

My organization has sponsored on a number of occasions and are potentially 
again this time. However I am concerned of these changes and the impact they 
may have.

The reason I bring it up in this forum is because I wonder if this is something 
the Council could take a position of. We all benefit from a healthy 
participation of sponsors. Without them the meetings would not exist. However, 
I believe ICANN is being just plain greedy and this could potentially harm 
future meetings.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Regards,



Adrian Kinderis