Re: [Membership] Re: Individual Memberships

["Dr Nii Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com>]

>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?

Nii