[NCUC-DISCUSS] 2017 ICANN Meetings

Thu Mar 17 01:31:45 CET 2016

Hi,

Thanks for this discussion. I saw there 2 issues here: the
selection/rotation for ICANN meeting and the geographical/regional division
within ICANN.

it is not the first time that ICANN board decide to move an ICANN meeting
to another country. it happened in 2011 for Jordan and the meeting was held
in June 2011 in Singapore (during "Arab spring"). it happened again with
Marrakech again and The meeting was held  in Singapore (because fears of
Ebola Epidemic). I don't know if that happened before 2011 or not.

for 2011, the replacement was in APAC country and was ok (Jordan didn't
want to organize again after that...). for Marrakech 2014, there was switch
between APAC and Africa slot. so it was possible to switch between Europe
and LAC but probably the constrains came from the new meeting format i.e. B
format which is shorted than others.

the switch also raised an issue: replacing by Singapore meant that no
another prospective host could  bid till 2017 !(the last ICANN meeting not
held in Singapre was in Beijing 2013) . For marrakech, options such
Istanbul and Dubai were proposed but then dismissed.

I can understand that for some reasons or for risks mitigation , meeting
can be moved or canceled. however, I think we need some clear and
transparent guidelines here to make such decision to ensure some
consistency e.g. why moving from Panama and not for Puerto rico while both
have Zika risks?  when making such decision and with which input e.g. third
party (consulting companies), governmental warning, community?
also reviewing the requirements for hosting ICANN meeting and including new
ones like access, visa , human rights may be worthy, the expression of
interest details are here https://meetings.icann.org/en/host  . we will
also have to assess in future the new format and its impact, the format B
which will be held first time in Helsinki is going to be an experiment for
everyone.

For the geographical region, I am kind of cautious with the topic. how can
we do the split? following which criteria and who will make the decision?
during Marrakech meeting  and there was a session about North African IGF,
and question raised if Sudan can be considered as part of that sub-region
or not because it was not at UN level but it was according to African
Union.  it is highly political because creating new regions means having at
least one board member from there and also would impact groups like ccNSO
and at-large since they have a geographical structuring.
I wouldn't worry about the outreach and staffing because that is somehow
included i.e. there are regional manager for Caribbean , Middle east, CEI
Countries and so on. more work need to be done that but that is at least
acknowledged in the ground.

happy to see that Ayden is volunteering for the Geographic Region WG report
comment and will be glad to help him.

Best,

Rafik

2016-03-17 5:34 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Oh, thanks for sharing that, James. How timely!
>
> Has the NCSG or NCUC already drafted a response to the final report
> recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group? If not, I'm
> happy to take the lead here and to draft something up for others to add to.
>
> I've only skim read a few of the recommendations and some seem slightly
> problematic to me, especially the idea that dependent overseas territories
> belong to the same region as their home country, unless their mother
> country agrees otherwise. I am sure that is something the GAC supports but
> that makes our outreach efforts harder. I already see this being an issue
> in San Juan. Puerto Ricans might be US citizens but their native language
> and culture varies from that of the mainland USA. By ICANN's arbitrary
> definition of North America the region has a very small number of members
> relative to other regions (8, to Asia/Pacific's 73), yet it is still
> guaranteed one director and a disproportionate amount of ALAC resources. If
> Puerto Rico was considered a part of Latin America and the Caribbean, we
> could bring those from the hispanosphere together and have outreach
> activities in a language that most from that region would be comfortable
> communicating in. But we won't be doing that. If the meeting in San Juan
> goes ahead, we'll mainly be bringing those from the US and Canada to Puerto
> Rico. Of course we need to do outreach there, too, but I've heard a few
> people now say this meeting will - by virtue of being in a Spanish-speaking
> territory - be a form of Latin American outreach. I just don't see how that
> is the case. By all means have a meeting in San Juan and if we can get
> additional language support there, great, but I would like it to be
> acknowledged that this is a North American meeting which will mainly be
> bringing together native English speakers, and is not a LatAm surrogate.
>
> I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for ICANN to deal with — it is
> much easier to defer to a 3rd party's definition of what constitutes a
> geographical region than to get into the tricky business of defining
> sovereignty and state self-determination (though I think ICANN already that
> did in assigning the .cat TLD to Catalonia in 2005) — but given how the
> geographic regions impact all of ICANN's outreach activities I think we
> should make it clear to the Working Group how harmful or limiting these
> arbitrary groupings of countries can be.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:46 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-12-23-en
>>
>> Of interest to this discussion I would think
>>
>>
>> -James
>>
>> From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of
>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>> Date: Wednesday 16 March 2016 at 7:39 p.m.
>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] 2017 ICANN Meetings
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Ayden, thank you for unmasking how bizarre and random regional groups
>> are. Not only in ICANN's grouping but so many other important IG venues,
>> who do not really see us for who we are in the LAC region but for
>> artifically connected borders made by governmental and economical powers
>> who do not represent us.
>>
>> Remote hubs have been an option in LAC. A few local surprises hit hard
>> especially those in universities in last ICANN meetings. Those are the
>> places w/ connectivity but they to depend on immunity to local political
>> turmoils (which hit Venezuela) and agreement w/ federal structures (case of
>> Brazil). Still, we keep on trying. We accept whatever we can get and props
>> to Alyne Andrade and Mark Datysgeld for doing independent courses on IG w/
>> ICANN in Brazil.
>>
>> On that note, São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro are different worlds altogether in
>> LAC. There you'll find CGI.br, ITS/FGV-RJ, USP just to name a few. They
>> will likely have heavy remote participation already in ICANN mtgs. Also,
>> transportation isn't an issue.
>>
>> A hub in the Amazon region, however, would be a first and it is quite a
>> nice idea to entertain but very out of the box, considering our online
>> engagement is primarily via mobile.
>>
>> As for the future of LAC engagement and the mtgs calendar, I can only
>> wonder.
>>
>> Bill, thanks for letting us know that staff is studying about Puerto Rico
>> and its possibilities. Please keep us posted. Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya
>> are terrible illnesses, cyclical epidemics and we keep repeating here that
>> they have to be prevented rather than putting out the fire only when the
>> media sees it.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Renata
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, all-
>>>
>>> The next meeting to be held in Latin America will be a small B-format
>>> meeting in 2018. I do think that it is unfortunate that it was not possible
>>> to switch this with the large A-format meeting in Copenhagen next year.
>>> However, maybe you Renata (or you could suggest this to people you know)
>>> could request funding from ICANN's Development & Public Responsibility
>>> Programs budget to establish a remote hub in São Paulo or elsewhere in the
>>> region so to make it easier for those unable to travel to the meeting to
>>> participate? I know it's no substitute for attending a meeting, but I think
>>> you could have some success finding funding here…
>>>
>>> Also - I'm not sure I understood why the meeting that had originally
>>> been scheduled for Panama City was being classed as a Latin American
>>> meeting, given Panama is geographically a part of North America? Likewise
>>> with the meeting in San Juan? I too hope that San Juan remains the home of
>>> ICANN 57, but I don't see how this being the case is going to help any
>>> Argentines, Brazilians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians etc participate in outreach
>>> programs (which are region-specific) given how bizarrely it seems ICANN
>>> groups countries into regions?
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Karel Douglas <douglaskarel at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The LAC region has lost out and I hope that there will some amends
>>>> somewhere / somehow.
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Karel
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:56 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s unclear whether Puerto Rico will be a problem, not only because
>>>>> of Zika, but also Chikungunya, which is pretty serious.
>>>>> http://www.salud.gov.pr/Sobre-tu-Salud/Pages/Condiciones/Chikungunya.aspx
>>>>>  Meeting staff will research etc.  Hopefully it’s under control by then...
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 13, 2016, at 19:38, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Seun
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the information about the block allocations.
>>>>> I'd be one thinking that EOI would also be a good idea.
>>>>> Criteria for selection could be refined from the replies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Renata
>>>>> Em 13/03/2016 15:31, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the meeting locations were already predetermined so it was
>>>>>> not realistic to change as suggested. As you may know, call to host ICANN
>>>>>> meetings are done in block (I think it's 2 years period) and countries who
>>>>>> expressed interest during the application window would have been reviewed
>>>>>> and selected. In a situation where the meeting venue changes due to
>>>>>> unforeseen circumstances, it becomes a plus for any other region that has a
>>>>>> country willing to host at such short notice (while still meeting the
>>>>>> hosting requirements).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's usually a difficult one but that is what it is. Personally, I
>>>>>> would have preferred that ICANN open a short call for EOI when such happens
>>>>>> so other countries in that particular region affected could express their
>>>>>> interest. (Although I don't know if it would have helped in this case since
>>>>>> the Zika stuff is considered continental)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2016 12:38 a.m., "Ayden Férdeline" <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, all-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The locations for ICANN Meetings in 2017 have been posted:
>>>>>>> https://meetings.icann.org/en/calendar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ICANN58 is in Copenhagen, ICANN59 is in Johannesburg, and ICANN60 is
>>>>>>> in Abu Dhabi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It appears that ICANN57 will remain in San Juan. I'm a little
>>>>>>> surprised that ICANN58 is going to Europe rather than Latin America, given
>>>>>>> the change of location of the Panama City meeting…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *************************************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>>>>   www.williamdrake.org
>>>>> *The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary
>>>>> Reflections*
>>>>> New book at https://www.apc.org/en/WGIG
>>>>> *************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>> Statement of Interest
>>> <https://links6.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/cAIvh3a4VItJh5Bj0?rn=IyczV3YzlGZtMUVD5kI&re=IyZy9mLjV3Yu5yc0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtMWdj5mI>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> Statement of Interest
> <https://links9.mixmaxusercontent.com/aMjjKHWxnLSD3SEwj/l/QZ7id1Ao4x59NDVpx?rn=IyczV3YzlGZtMUVD5kI&re=IyZy9mLjV3Yu5yc0NXasB0czV3YzlGZtMWdj5mI>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160317/d639015d/attachment-0002.html>