<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
Hi,
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
what ablut a "mix" of
<br>
</div>
<div>
a. two full F2F meeting per year/Spring&Fall (one in the global South and one in the global North)
<br>
</div>
<div>
b. one virtual meeting (Summer)
<br>
</div>
<div>
c. smaller "regional" and "thematic" meetings (F2F) / probably back to back to regular RIR/IETF/ISOC meetings
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Wolfgang
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> hat am 11. April 2020 um 13:16 geschrieben:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="ox-48c427e638-moz-cite-prefix">
On 11/04/2020 12:29, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
And the truth is that ALAC does not have the financial resources that other stakeholder groups have, therefore will be at disadvantage whenever money allocation for activities will be involved.
</blockquote>
<br>So is what you are saying, that those who do not have the money like ALAC will meet online, whilst those who do, for example the GDD Summit, will meet face to face? So we've pretty much signed ALAC out having any significant involvement on important topics? Of course I am being provocative here, but we have to be careful about what we wish: if we wish less meetings, that will mean there will probably never be any further meetings outside of North America and Europe since the remaining meetings will be attended by thousands and thousands of people. The inter-meeting "action" (6 months is a long time) will take place in other meetings where we are not invited. IMHO we have to fight to keep that right to be a *all* meetings, not just the big ones. And we also have to fight to keep some meetings taking place in developing economies, or have given up on billions of citizens in these countries? (again I am being provocative :-) )
<br>Kindest regards,
<br>
<br>Olivier
<br>
</blockquote>
<div class="default-style">
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>