[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

[Michael Oghia]

Hi all,

I also support all of Ed's original statements and now Ayden's additions
(+1 to Stephanie's as well). Of course, we would need to include the hub
staff in the discussions, but I also think that's a great idea. Perhaps it
could even be extended to the cities with engagement offices as well.

The idea of an 8-day meeting makes me tired just thinking about it. I don't
see it as the best solution. Shorter meetings held more often seems more
appropriate.

And Ed, Reykjavik sounds lovely! Good arguments for it.

Best,
-Michael Oghia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> 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
> <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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d3ad6132/attachment-0002.html>