[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] Re: Individual Memberships
>A 19:25 14/02/99 -0500, Michael Sondow a écrit :
>>Daniel Kaplan makes a proposal that has a false premise. He says "I
>>would not like ICANN to be sponsored by firms." The premise is that
>>ICANN is not yet sponsored by firms. This is false. The GIP firms
>>are sponsoring it.
>>Recently, a call was put out by one of the GIP organizers (I forget
>>who, maybe Vincent Cerf) for more money from the GIP member firms
>>for ICANN. Daniel Kaplan says he wouldn't like ICANN to have
>>corporate sponsoring. I'd like to know what he has to say to the
>>present corporate sponsoring.
>>Will Mr. Kaplan reply?
>Why wouldn't I reply?
>1/ I was personnally not aware of how ICANN was financed until the recent
>exchange of messages.
>2/ To me, the way ICANN has been financed from October 1998 until now is a
>slightly different issue: since there has been no real provision on
>funding, I don't know how ICANN could do otherwise in the very short run.
>But I agree it should not last.
Can we realistically have an ICANN without corporate sponsorship? Why is
corporate sponsorship considered harmful in this case? How can the perceived
dangers of corporate sponsorship be contained?