<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',Sans-Serif; font-size: 14px"><div>Hi everybody,<br />
<br />
Thanks to Milton, David and Tapani for their contributions to this discussion.<br />
<br />
I’m with Milton. Even as I argued for Reykjavik, I always mentioned that I saw little value in the intercessional meeting and would prefer that we didn’t even have one. The CSG likes them because: 1) it gives them additional time to lobby staff and 2) many, although not all, CSG representatives are able to bill their clients for the time they spend at the meeting. ICANN is pushing it because it allows them to try to create an institutiional identity amongst CSG and NCSG leadership, as being members of the NCPH, that has nothing to do with the people we are here to represent. The NCPH is nothing more than a method of vote aggregation and power distribution that allows for the creation of pretty charts. Nothing more or at least it should not be.<br />
<br />
That said, I would advise against boycotting the meeting. As Tapani rightly notes for this year the train has left the station. The CSG and NPOC will meet regardless of our views and only bad things can come out of such a liaison from a NCUC point of view. The NCPH WG on the future of the GNSO that came out of the last WG is one example of the type of bad thing this meeting can spawn. Because of a missed flight connection I arrived at that meeting too late to try to stop it. I wish others recognized the danger and had been able to. If we are not there to protest more things contrary to the interest of the NCUC may result from an intercessional meeting. We need to be there if it happens if for no other reason than to assume a defensive position.<br />
<br />
I should note that many of our more senior members are already boycotting the intercessional by deciding not to come. That’s not a bad thing as it gets some of our younger members more involved but it also puts us at a disadvantage when the CSG keeps sending more experienced members to negotiate with us.<br />
<br />
David has a great idea: regional hubs with video conferencing. I’d like to do that not only with a small meeting like the intercessional but also with one of the general ICANN Meetings. It would be a great way of revitalizing the hub concept if, at least initially, the hubs were at the three ICANN hub locations. GNSO Council Vice Chair Donna Austin has been a strong proponent of both video conferencing and reducing the length and number of ICANN Meetings. We do have allies if we want to pursue this. <br />
<br />
For now, I see little harm in reaching out to other NCPH constituencies to see if there is any desire to cancel this years meeting. If not, we should push the idea of holding it outside of the United States. Tapani has given additional reasons why Reykjavik may make sense from a practical viewpoint. it’s proximity to the USA east coast, where many of the CSG reps come from, and excellent nonstop connections take away a major CSG talking point for keeping it in the USA. It may also be a way to reduce enthusiasm for the event amongst the CSG. As David pointed out, just getting it out of the USA would be a major accomplishment.<br />
<br />
Best,<br />
<br />
Ed</div>
<div><br />
- For the record, I believe ICANN needs to really reconsider its entire meeting program. I’ve found targeted F2F WG meetings to be of great value, huge general meetings far less so. Outside of the yearly AGM we really should take the position that we need to have a reason to meet rather than decide upon having a meeting and then finding a reason for it. The intercessional really seems to fall in the later category. </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select: none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select: none;"> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "Tapani Tarvainen" <tapani.tarvainen@effi.org><br />
<b>Sent</b>: Monday, October 24, 2016 5:23 PM<br />
<b>To</b>: ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br />
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional</span>
<div> </div>
On Oct 24 12:30, Mueller, Milton L (milton@gatech.edu) wrote: > Thanks for the information but I have to point out that you still > have not made a reasonable case for having an intersessional meeting > at all. True. As NCSG Chair, I don't think I should be making a case for or against it, especially not on NCUC's list. I am helping to organize the meeting because NCUC and NPOC asked for it, not for my own sake. I certainly travel more than enough as it is. > If it is "already decided" to have one as you claim, then I have to > insist that our leadership bring to the ICANN staff the objections > of a substantial number of our members. It was in effect decided by NCSG EC in the spring when special budget request for it was made, with NCUC representatives' agreement. After that at least Rafik has been involved in the planning process, never to my knowledge questioning the need for the meeting or proposing it should be cancelled. I don't really see that ICANN staff is to blame. Of course NCUC and its leadership are at liberty to change their minds at any time and decide to express objections to anyone they choose, or to not participate, or to ask for the meeting to be cancelled. I'll leave it up to NCUC EC to judge how substantial the number of NCUC members who are objecting is and what to do about it. But I'm responsible to NCSG, both of its constituencies as well as individual members. I will follow the decisions of NCSG EC. Of course NCSG EC can also reverse its decisions, and you can always ask NCUC's representatives there to act to that effect. I will also listen to NCSG members' views and consider taking issues to NCSG EC on my own initiative or acting on my own power as appropriate. But in general I won't do that with input from one constituency only - this is NCUC's list after all. </chair> Now, dropping my Chair's hat and speaking as a member of NCUC only: > These meetings are a costly expenditure of time and money that > cannot be justified based on the outcomes of. The travel time often > exceeds the meeting time, and these gigantic holes in our calendars > distract us from the actual policy development work the community is > supposed to be doing. There may indeed be people in the NCSG who > view ICANN as a free travel club, but I am not one of them, and > neither are a lot of others here. We need to move away from that > attitude. ICANN's GNSO exists for policy development, full stop. You make a strong argument and I find myself much in agreement with it. Yet face-to-face meetings can often stimulate action in a way that teleconferences and mailing lists cannot. Whether that is the case here, or in regular ICANN meetings (maybe we should have only one per year?), various working group meetings &c, I'm not sure. I do think we should not try to make do without any physical meetings at all, though. In any event it is good to talk about it, perhaps try to develop metrics to evaluate how useful various meetings are, or just try to find consensus on how many meetings we think are useful. As David put it: "It's generally the case that short term practical discussion of the achievable will get mixed in with long term discussion of the desirable." Yes. And that is not a bad thing in itself. Indeed it can be good if the short term practicalities get us talking about long term goals we might otherwise forget. But we should not forget about short term realities either. And I think this train has already left the station, it would not be a good idea to ask for the meeting to be cancelled this late, after we requested and got funding for it and when other constituencies are moving on with their preparations for it. -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</div></span>