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 have 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

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" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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

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@sympatico.ca [mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:15 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; council@gnso.icann.org 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" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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

It seems to me that if we're going to be talking about sponsorship, we should also be talking about whether it's time for ICANN to start charging a registration fee to attend the meetings. I was dumbstruck when I attended my first ICANN meeting and found out that there's no charge to attend. Every other meeting I attend has a registration fee and some are quite high ($750+). Let me be clear: I'm NOT suggesting that ICANN should start charging a registration fee so that the meetings are revenue generators. I do think, though, that it's time to examine whether the costs of the meetings are high enough so that it makes sense to charge some fee that can be used to offset those costs. In addition, the more ICANN can recover through registration fees, the less money it needs from sponsors. As to the sponsorship fee, the prices and "benefits" are at the point where there's an optics issue, IMHO. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 3:40 AM To: Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Sponsorship of the ICANN Meetings 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 have 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