<div>Just in regards to the second point — Mexico does not fall within North America, according to ICANN's arbitrary geographic regions framework. I believe that meetings should remain within their region (at least until such time as we no longer have
a framework requiring regional rotation of meetings), so if the March 2018 meeting does not go ahead in Puerto Rico (and I think it should - relocating the meeting given the circumstances would be a disproportionate response), it should
remain in North America, as defined by ICANN's geographic regions framework. I know this does not always happen in practice, but I was firmly opposed to relocating the meeting from Latin America to Europe last year. All this aside I do not think
it is the best use of our limited time with the CEO to discuss venue locations, let alone for a meeting in excess of 12 months time. </div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div id="protonmail_mobile_signature_block">Ayden </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
</div>On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:18 pm, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <'raquino@gmail.com'> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">Hi
<br />
<br />I agree w/ Ed but also
<br />
<br />* With the visa travel ban, organizations such as IETF and ISOC are
<br />reviewing their actions for the time period the USA will be subject to
<br />their new president mandate, ICANN also issued a communiqué on this
<br />matter. What are the strategies in place to ensure international
<br />participation remains a reality in ICANN? Specifically updates on:
<br />1) Will there be a contract with a visa agency to help with travel
<br />arrangements?
<br />2) Will the meeting in Puerto Rico remain as planned? Couldn't it move
<br />to Mexico?
<br />3) Will ICANN reassure its commitment to diversity, which NCUC is
<br />devoted to work towards too in WS2, and work on increasing
<br />participation and leadership position from developing and least
<br />developed countries and women?
<br />4) ICANN jurisdiction being in the USA, can we be assured ICANN will
<br />try to safeguard legally its international status?
<br />5) Is ICANN monitoring the transition process of the Secretary of
<br />Commerce, given that with the former appointee ICANN had extensive
<br />dialogue which ensured the IANA transition came to completion?
<br />
<br />[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
<br />
<br />Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
<br />Mon Feb 6 14:33:42 CET 2017
<br />
<br />Previous message (by thread): [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
<br />Next message (by thread): [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
<br />Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
<br />
<br />________________________________
<br />
<br />Hi Farzi,
<br />
<br />Here's one:
<br />
<br />Ninety seven American hi tech companies signed an amicus brief supporting
<br />the State of Washington's lawsuit against United States President Donald
<br />Trump (
<br />http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/amicus-brief-by-tech-com
<br />panies/2322/ ) and his travel ban.
<br />
<br />ICANN is an American high tech corporation impacted by the ban.
<br />
<br />Did:
<br />
<br />1. ICANN consider joining with its fellow American hi tech companies in
<br />signing onto this brief?,
<br />2. If so, why did it decide not to do so?
<br />3. If not, why not?
<br />4. Does the CEO agree that the travel ban has serious repercussions for
<br />ICANN? If so, what does ICANN intend to do, if anything, to mitigate the
<br />harm this ban is causing and potentially will, if extended, continue to
<br />cause ICANN corporate and community?
<br />
<br />Thanks for considering,
<br />
<br />Ed Morris
<br />_______________________________________________
<br />Ncuc-discuss mailing list
<br />Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org
<br />http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
<br />
</blockquote>
</div>