[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Ed.

Thanks for your interest and your detailled message.

As matter of fact, you are mentioning a report of the kickoff confcall to
start the  planning for intersessional meeting, held this Friday. The
report was shared in NCUC EC list but there was no discussion yet as you
know. Members can check that email in the NCUC EC list so they can make
their opinion
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2016-October/003143.html

I couldn't attend  the call so I was chairing the CCWG diversity subgroup
call as co-rapporteur in the same time . As you know diversity as topic has
a strong interest among NCUC membership.

While I couldn't attend, I suggested : to not hold the meeting in an US
city again and thinking about having it as pre-event for icann meeting B
instead for some reasons.

Yes like many I don't have the luxury to be away for long time from work
and family and I usually take that on my limited holidays. The meeting B in
johanesburg next year is shorter by design and also focused on policy. I
think CCWG meeting will be held in sunday as happened in Helsinki meeting
and we can avoid any clash.
It is more easier for people to add 2 days to 5 days meeting than taking 5
or 6  separate days off (at least depending on the itinerary) to attend a
standalone meeting such the intersessional.

Having it in Johanesburg also means a possible outreach and also having the
opportunity to members to attend the meeting and not just the leadership.
I have no specific position about Iceland why I know that we have to
consider issues such visa and itineraries  for those from LAC, Africa and
APAC.
At least Hyderabad meeting  made all of us equals with regard to visa
hurdles and difficulties, something some of us have to handle for every
ICANN meeting.

It is too early to dismiss any option or push for a specific one and we
will have to see all pros and cons according to objective criteria. When we
get more information and suggestions, I think we can make a decision with
acceptable trade-off.

Hope that helps.

Best,

Rafik

On Oct 22, 2016 11:12 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> A bit of history: since the NCPH intercessional meeting was started four
> years ago every meeting has been held in the United States. The CSG
> contingent is largely US based. We are far more diverse. That’s why I
> support any and all efforts to have the next such meeting hosted outside
> the boundaries of the USA.
>
> I understand a bit why the meeting is unlikely to happen in Asia or South
> America or Africa. I would support holding a meeting in any of those
> regions. Unfortunately the budget for the intercessional meeting is not
> large and because of the CSG’s largely American composition bringing
> attendees to most, if not all, of those regions is not within the budget.
> Zika is also an issue for some, whether a rational concern or not.
>
> I should note that rotating the meeting between ICANN’s three hub cities –
> Los Angeles, Singapore and Istanbul – makes a lot of sense to me but then
> again I also supported putting ICANN Meetings themselves on a similar
> rotation. Apparently doing the rotation for the intercessional is also a no
> go.
>
> I was pleasantly surprised when I learned that at long last Reykjavik
> appears to be getting serious consideration for a small group ICANN
> meeting. I had argued for CCWG F2F meetings to be held there but without
> success.  Reykjavik just makes sense.
>
> Thus, I was sad to see on the NCUC EC page that this wonderful city was
> disparaged as “some city in Iceland (please forgive me I will never ever be
> able to spell that city’s name).” I was happy to learn that some in the
> noncommercial community do support Reykjavik. Just apparently not within
> the NCUC EC leadership. Again, sad.
>
> One of the NCUC suggestions was that the intercessional meeting be
> attached to a normal Meeting, at the beginning or end. I strongly oppose
> that idea for the following reasons:
>
> 1. ICANN meetings are already too long.
>
>
> For those who are single, are students, academics, unemployed or
> unattached it might be easy to pop off for 10 days to two weeks a few times
> a year. For the rest of of us it is not. I would find it much easier to get
> away for a three day and a five day meeting (two meetings) than I would for
> a single eight day meeting. I suspect I am not alone with this preference.
>
> 2. The front end of meetings are already used by other groups.
>
> The CCWG will be meeting prior to the next three Meetings. Many NCUC
> members volunteer on the CCWG. Do we proceed to have an intercessional
> without these volunteers? Or do we extend the meeting even longer?
>
> 3. People are tired after an ICANN Meeting.
>
> Do we want to meet for a few days at the end of an ICANN Meeting? After a
> week of nonstop work I’m not sure it would be productive to add another few
> days of work to the schedule. I doubt many would stick around to
> participate. Those who do may have the battles of the previous week on
> their mind. I know I would. I’m not sure I would be up to being overly
> friendly to CSG members I’d just battled for several days.
>
> 4. The whole idea of the intercessional meeting was to bring the NCPH
> together *away *from the ICANN Meeting, where things could be a bit more
> relaxed.
>
> This was a poor idea and I’m sorry to see the NCUC proposing it.
>
> I was happy to see the NCUC suggest Singapore as a possible meeting site
> (see above). I’m sorry the budget seems not to allow for it.
>
> I understand from posts by our representatives to the planning meeting
> that the cities that may have received traction are Washington, Boston and
> Reykjavik. Two years ago the intercession was in DC. Do we need to go back
> to the U.S. capital every two years? Remember that thing called the
> transition? Or do we go to Boston: my birthplace, but only a whole 7 hours
> drive away from Washington in the same country? One country, one internet?
>
> Why Reykjavik, or as it was called in a post on the NCUC EC message board,
> “some city in Iceland”? Because it just makes sense.
>
>
> 1. Ease of travel
>
> The large of majority of intercessional attendees come from either Europe
> or the east coast of the United States. Here are some nonstop travel times
> to Reykjavik:
>
> Berlin:   3 hours 45 minutes
> Boston: 5 hours 5 minutes
> London: 3 hours 10 minutes
> New York: 5 hours 25 minutes
> Paris: 3 hours 30 minutes
>
> Shared pain. Yes, Reykjavik is in Europe but it is fairly close to North
> America. Of great importance when travelling in winter there are nonstop
> flights to Reykjavik from a surprising number of North American cities,
> east and west coasts,  and European cities, north and south (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keflav%C3%ADk_International_Airport ). I
> had weather related connection problems while transiting to two of the
> three intercessions I was supposed to attend. Nonstop flights lessen that
> possibility.
>
> Those coming from outside these two regions will need to change planes to
> get to Iceland, the same as many have to do no matter where we may hold the
> meeting.
>
> 2. Cost
>
> The US Department of State per diem rate for Reykjavik is $318 a day
> (includes all expenses, including accommodation. Compare that to Paris
> ($497) or London ($468).
>
> 3. Infrastructure
>
> Iceland is a modern Nordic country. Things work and the meeting
> infrastructure is fantastic: http://www.meetinreykjavik.is/planyourevent .
>
> 4. Weather
>
> It’s not the tropics, but in February Reykjavik’s average high temperature
> of 39 degrees F is actually 2 degrees higher than Boston – an apparent
> alternate choice.
>
> 5. Attractiveness
>
> We’re there to work and Iceland has excellent facilities for that. For
> those who also like fine dining Icelandic seafood and lamb are world
> famous. Pollution, traffic congestion: non existent. Sightseeing, unique
> and tremendous. Nightlife: voted many times being amongst the best on earth.
>
> The big thing though is work. This is a two day meeting. Reykjavik offers
> the potential to bring the greatest number of attendees to a central
> location with the least amount of travel wear and tear. Is it perfect for
> anyone? No. Is it good for many? Yes.
>
> It certainly is worthy of consideration. And as a non US resident I
> would have serious reservations travelling once again to the USA for the
> intercessional meeting. Is it too much to ask that it be held outside of
> the USA once every four or five years? I will also note that the NCUC has
> more members based in Europe than in any other region (
> http://www.ncuc.org/about/members/ ). How about making the CSG folks have
> to travel to the region we have the most members for once?
>
> Having said all of this I would also opine that I don’t really see the
> value in even having the intercessional meeting. It seems to largely exist
> to allow the CSG members to lobby staff. No wonder they want to keep having
> it in the country with the most ICANN staff. Perhaps instead of debating
> where we should be having the meeting we should be debating whether to have
> it at all.
>
> If we are going to have it, though, and there are some good reasons to do
> so,  let’s really consider the options, without disparaging one of the most
> remarkable cities and societies in the world. Reykjavik, the capital of the
> country with the oldest Parliament in the world (the Althing, founded 930),
> is not all that hard to spell. It’s also very easy to get to, has
> tremendous facilities, reasonable costs, and a wonderful democratic
> tradition. All reasons why the intercessional should be held there. At
> least once.
>
> Reykjavik: it just makes sense.
>
> Ed
>
> - It makes sense particularly for the NCUC. I note that the NCUC currently
> has no members in Iceland. As a technologically advanced country with high
> education levels and high levels of English competence, a country that has
> led the world in privacy and online free speech initiatives, this is
> surprising. This should be prime NCUC membership territory. If we take the
> intercessional to Reykjavik, do some outreach, it just very well may become
> one of our more prolific countries in terms of membership. Demographically
> and ideologically it should be.  Given Iceland’s unequaled democratic
> tradition it’s also a place we may be able to learn from ourselves as we
> transition ICANN into it’s exciting new era.
>
>
> More information:
>
> Let’s Meet In The Middle:  https://vimeo.com/77711285
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161022/d927823a/attachment-0002.html>