Evan: in some topics we are thinking like twin brothers, because our thoughts are similars, but you always write it first. I Agree,it`s impossible to ask public participation, when the hotel costs are very expensive. on the other side this issue deserve an statement for ALAC.
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:57:45 -0500 > From: evan@telly.org > To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility > > Hello everyone, > > We've now found out that the hotels used for the Delhi ICANN meeting are > outlandishy expensive: > http://del.icann.org/hotels > > (BTW, the main conference location is IIRC the Taj Palace. Where is ALAC > being put?) > > This has raised a question that has been bothering me for a while... > > It's one thing for ICANN to claim to want public participation; but is > its process really accessible when locations are chosen that are so > expensive? When was the last time that "cost to attend" was a factor > when choosing an ICANN meeting venue? The Delhi venue may be inexpensive > to those who live within India, but seemingly prohibitive to anyone else > who's neither subsidized nor on an expense account. Even as a regional > venue, that seems unreasonable. > > I ask, in part, because of the Summit and the need to have a venue (or > perhaps ongoing ones) to which we can bring many people together for as > little cost as possible. > > It would serve ICANN's financial interests -- not to mention those of > attendees -- if at least one meeting per year was scheduled at a > location that had > a) a major air hub > b) somewhat reasonable hotel rates (ie, not $450/night!) > c) fairly flexible entry policies for attendees (preferably visa-free > from many countries) > > (Thankfully -- by coincidence of timing -- Paris seems close to meeting > those criteria. Arguably, LA was inexpensive and a major hub -- but as a > last-minute venue, advance planning for it was difficult, as was getting > visas for some.) > > As At-Large is the body charged with promoting public participation in > ICANN, perhaps this (financial accessibility of meetings) is an issue of > interest to us. Well, if it's not an issue to _us_, it certainly won't > be an issue to gold-card constituency reps, or those who go at ICANN's > expense to every meeting no matter how costly. > > In the case of the Summit, there is also a matter of keeping costs down > for ICANN. I would hope that in moving forward -- if there is eventual > wisdom seen in having the Summit as a biennial event -- that the target > city be chosen for its accessibility to travellers. We owe it to those > who are not completely subsidized -- as well as to potential outside > Summit sponsors -- to deliberately choose financially accessible venues > for these events. > > However, I don' t want to limit this as a Summit issue since the matter > of accessibility should not only be an occasional concern. > > What does anyone else here think? Is this an At-Large issue? I'm rather > surprised that it hasn't been raised before; perhaps one reason is > because ALAC itself is always shielded from the financial > inaccessibility of meetings. However, the ALSs and public that it > supposedly leads and represents, on the whole, have no such luxury. > > - Evan > > (And, yes, I'm aware of teleconferencing and other mass participation > mechanisms. But you all know that some of the real power brokering and > alliance-building doesn't happen at formal meetings. While podcasts and > such are important tools, they're no substitute for face-to-face.) > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger