[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Oct 22 05:37:00 CEST 2016
Thanks for your clarification Rafik, and let me be clear....to a
Canadian -30 in February, anywhere is bound to be a good choice. I also
would agree that adding to one of the short meetings makes sense,
because 18 hours of travel one way is a lot for a short meeting.
Perhaps we actually should try to figure out which destinations are the
easiest to get to for most of us, in a systematic way, including visa
obstacles. I wonder if ICANN Travel would have such a spreadsheet?
Stephanie
On 2016-10-21 23:08, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <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/
> <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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161021/6454b3ec/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list