[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

[Ayden Férdeline]

Greetings all,

-
If the budget is the issue, can we talk about why participants from Facebook et al receive travel funding from ICANN to come to the NCPH intercessionals? Maybe that could be revisited.

-
Of course not every meeting should be in the US, but rotating these meetings among the hub offices of LA, Singapore, and Istanbul makes more sense to me than choosing a different city each time. I think it’s a waste of precious resources scouting out cities and identifying appropriate venues, and it is harder to budget for travel. I don’t think of the NCPH intercessionals as being public facing meetings either (perhaps this is my ignorance of them) so I’m not sure how relevant outreach is as a rationale for moving from different city to different city.

-
Short meetings work better for me too – but it depends on timing. A meeting that begins on a Wednesday, for instance, like ICANN 57, is not convenient for most with other professional commitments… I would prefer to have the option to travel over the weekend and to never need to be away for more than one week.

-
As for visas, it might be an unpopular view but I think it is wholly inappropriate to host a meeting in a country where everyone needs a visa. I read with great interest a post on the CCWG-IG list a few days ago where a member suggested we need to evaluate whether the new meeting framework meets the community’s needs – it is my view that ICANN should avoid hosting meetings in any country where the barrier to obtaining a visa is too great for a majority of the participants. There might be value in not rotating meetings by geographical location but by shared pain for obtaining a visa; i.e. one meeting in the Schengen zone, one in Mercosur, one in countries that accept US visas (like Mexico), and so forth. Perhaps some research has been undertaken on this subject.

-
Thanks, Ed, for raising this important issue, and to Rafik and Stephanie for sharing your views. It is an interesting discussion.


Ayden Férdeline


[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional
Local Time: 22 October 2016 5:17 AM
UTC Time: 22 October 2016 04:17
From: egmorris1 at toast.net
To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>


Hi Rafik,

Thanks for your response and for all of your hard work on our behalf. Having to be in two places at once is very difficult (although something many of us apparently will be required to do repeatedly in Hyderabad) and in leading the Diversity effort you chose wisely and have our thanks.

I believe we simply may have a difference of opinion, which is great to bring to the list.


. 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

Thanks for putting the link there. I should have done that in my post.



While I couldn't attend, I suggested : to not hold the meeting in an US city again





We agree there.





The meeting B in johanesburg next year is shorter by design and also focused on policy.





Agreed. It is shorter by design and is focused on policy. That's one of the reasons it's not a good idea to add what is largely a structural meeting to the policy meeting, thus turning meeting B into a clone of the other non AGM meeting in terms of time and content. Once we do that we're back to the old schedule of two 6-7 day meetings, plus travel time, plus the longer AGM meeting every year. I like the short meeting B and believe we should keep it as designed: short and 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.







I disagree.


For me, and I believe some of our members, shorter and more frequent meetings are easier to do. Those of us who are involved in situations involving children, for example, may find it easier to get away for shorter periods of time than for longer ones. It's very hard to ask a SO to take care of a child or children for close to two weeks by themselves; a week at time is easier, even if you have to do it twice.


Work also is perhaps different for many of us I can take a week off and return fairly current. Two weeks, such as I'm about to do, is a lot harder. Catching up becomes harder. Things pile up.


I realise that things may be different for many of our members. Obviously, Rafik, what is best for both us is different. Neither position is right or wrong, just different. That's why I thought it was important that upon hearing of the NCUC position to bring it to the list and start a discussion. I disagree with the position, but recognise I may be in the minority.





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.





We're already going to be in Johannesburg for ICANN 59. Combining the meetings causes us to lose an outreach possibility. I can't tell you that having a meeting in Reykjavik will allow our Icelandic members to attend the meeting largely because we don't have any. To me, that's a great reason to go there. To get some.




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.






Which is why we should be pressuring ICANN to arrange and pay for visa services firms to assist our covered travellers who need visas. We talked about this on Council three meetings ago: Council Chair James Bladell talked about the difference it made when his company, GoDaddy, hired such a firm for it's employees. It is something out SG and C leadership should pursue with ICANN. It really is not a Council issue per se.


Iceland is a member of the Schengen visa zone so visa hurdles would be the same as for any European country that is a member.





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.





I was responding to a post that clearly stated the NCUC was already pushing two options, one with which I agreed and one with which I disagreed. I have made a suggestion for a meeting site and I'm glad the door, and mind, is still open.


I will reiterate, though, my position that the best place for the intercessional is no place. I'd be far more interested, for example, in understanding where the RrSG and RySG stand on the issues and how they function than in meeting again with the CSG. Although the intercessional may have had some purpose at one time I'm not sure it does any longer.


Thanks for your discussion, Rafik, and for your hard work on behalf of us all.


Best,


Ed























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/c0b3f629/attachment-0002.html>