[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

[Michael Oghia]

Farzaneh,

Wonderfully well-said (and loved the poem and your passion)! You actually
also made me think of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, as well. I have friends working
there for the OSCE and they say really good things about it.

Turkey (for all of its current issues) offers e-visas to most people as
well. So, meeting there at the hub is quite easy for people too (and
Istanbul, even as a major world city) is very affordable too (bear in mind
it's not the capital of Turkey, Ankara is).

Best,
-Michael


On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 9:46 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Ed,
>
> Since you are quoting me and I was the one who can't spell the city name
> you are mentioning and attended that meeting in place of Rafik I would like
> to give you a response.
>
> I insisted several times during the meeting that the meeting should be
> held somewhere other than the US and even Europe. A cursory look at the
> NCPH members (I do not want to single out constituencies and stakeholder
> groups, you can see it for yourself) and leaders show most people who have
> key roles reside in Europe and the US, and it extremely lacks diversity. We
> have to get out of this bubble. The majority does not have always to win (
> I have said something like that in that meeting and raised visa issues
> since someone said the world is your oyster!). So I thought I recommend
> Singapore. It is in Asia; it is easier for many to get visas and it is more
> convenient for travelers in Asia and Africa, and attendees from North
> America for once might have to go through the hurdle of a long flight. I
> said *for once in the previous sentence* as intercessionals happened
> solely in the US past three years ( I think) as Rob Hoggart said.
>
> Now that I am thinking more about this, I am wondering why I did not
> recommend Dushanbe. Dushanbe is in Tajikistan. Tajikistan and Turkmenistan
> used to be the heart of great Persian poetry and literature,so close to my
> heart. We don't have many members from Central Asia (if any) it would have
> been nice to go there and do outreach. But flights are too expensive (from
> Europe and the US), and budget wise we can't do that. Not an option then.
> But you see how easy it is to cross out locations that don't make sense
> budget wise and distance wise, but it is not easy to cross out locations
> that are not visa friendly and not convenient for the minority? Schengen is
> difficult to get for many people in Asia and Africa, and it subjects people
> to provide many documents that the Europeans and Americans would have been
> astounded if they knew about. Six months bank statement, guarantee, etc.
> and to be honest not always visa applicants are treated with dignity when
> they apply for Schengen. You don't hear it because the applicants are
> either in the minority or there is no venue to voice concerns. We can't
> just say: get a Schengen.  For 2017 intercessional we are going to have a
> new EC member from Africa. Would be nice not to give that member as one of
> the first EC tasks to apply for Schengen! You have always
> been sympathetic to this issue whenever I raised it, and I thank you for
> that.
>
>
> I don't support going to a European or an American location at this time.
> I am not against going to Iceland, but I am not for it either. Not because
> of the city, it sounds wonderful and convenient, but because for once we
> might want to get out of US and Europe. There is Internet in other places
> too. Btw,  I checked the US State Department per diem (according to their
> website), maybe we are looking at different things, but it is 386 USD per
> day. It is an expensive city.Per diem for  Singapore , which is also an
> expensive city,  is 288 USD.
>
>
>
>
> I am going to follow an old Persian tradition ( I think the tradition is
> not very rational, but it is quite interesting and amusing) and finish this
> correspondence with a poem by Sa'di.
>
> The sons of Adam are limbs of each other,
> Having been created of one essence.
> When the calamity of time affects one limb
> The other limbs cannot remain at rest.
>
> So let's not stay at rest even when one attendee of the meeting might be
> subject to going through complicated visa processes to get to a meeting.
> And let's not stay at rest until we have diversity at NCPH.
>
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 October 2016 at 06:17, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a0651d7b/attachment-0002.html>