Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:06:47 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
One call in the middle of the holiday season for many people is not a good indication of general interest in tracking these calls. And as you suggest, $60 is a pretty trivial sum. If registrars want to be budget-conscious (and who can blame them for that) they could knock out a Whois study or two and fund the audiocasts for the decade or two.
> -----Original Message-----
> As you may recall, in Brussels the Council passed a NCSG motion
> requiring that all Council calls be audiocast in real time on the web.
> Useful in terms of general transparency and accountability, but also
> operationally for us, as NCSGers can Skype chat with their Councilors
> during the session to provide input on votes etc.
>
> Since passage of the motion there's been some post hoc push-back from
> the registrars about why do we need to do this, the $60 per session is
> too expensive (!) and not all that many people care to listen in anyway
> (not supported by the numbers thus far). I guess this combines a) the
> usual contracted party claim that ICANN's paying for stuff with "their
> money" (rather than the money of registrants), and b) a desire by some
> councilors not to have their SG listening in as Council performs its
> alchemy.
>
|
|
|