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@mcgill.ca > 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