<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>The last one was more of a blue ribbon panel than a proper ccwg.</div><div><br></div><div>I think this requires wide organized discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>We can always invent some new process.</div><div><br></div><div>Avri</div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> </div><div>Date: 7/8/17 14:07 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Selection of ICANN meeting venues and dates </div><div><br></div></div>Agree, the last one didn’t exactly end spectacularly, I think is something that staff can handle given the authority to do si.<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever<br>Sent: 08 July 2017 19:05<br>To: ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Selection of ICANN meeting venues and dates<br><br><br><br>On 07/08/2017 06:17 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:<br>> Hi everyone,<br>> <br>> The CEO is asking:<br>> <br>> 1) Do you think it is timely to open up a broader discussion about <br>> adding rules on how to choose meeting venues: factors such as gender <br>> issues, democratic principles, and strict rules in observance of <br>> religious holidays, etc., have been among the questions that have been <br>> raised.<br><br>Yes, I suggest similar approach to:<br><br>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-07<br><br>> <br>> 2) How do you anticipate such a discussion to take place?<br>> <br>> Some of you have commented on this already on another thread at NCSG <br>> mailing list. I will relay those comments. But question 2 needs more <br>> answers.<br>> <br>> If you have any particular views please discuss here.<br>> <br><br>Maybe community could be asked for input, which could be re-worked by staff into a document which would be opened for public comment.<br><br>Am not sure we would need a fully fledged ccwg for this.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Niels<br><br><br><br>> Best<br>> <br>> <br>> Farzaneh<br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>> Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br>> <br><br>--<br>Niels ten Oever<br>Head of Digital<br><br>Article 19<br>www.article19.org<br><br>PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 _______________________________________________<br>Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br>_______________________________________________<br>Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br></body></html>