[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

Sat Oct 22 11:51:09 CEST 2016

Hi

Not to get too deep into this but two comments.  

Reykjavik: I keynoted at the Icelandic IGF in February 2011, which was organized by the government.  I asked why they didn’t do a multistakeholder planning process and the answer was we really don’t have an organized civil society IG scene here. I was initially skeptical but over the course of the event I did manage to meet a few CS people, e.g. Pirates and grad students, and they basically said the same. Maybe things have changed, but if outreach is a guiding concern this it might be worth looking into.  I might add that re: weather the snow was a meter deep, it was well below freezing, and the wind was fierce, but maybe that was unusual.  Getting in and out was difficult as weather meant flight problems and the immigration people almost made me miss a plane with an hour interrogation about a small folded edge on one of my passport pages, wanted me to stay the night and go to the embassy to verify my ID, fun argument. Maybe that was unusual too.

Johannesburg: From an outreach standpoint, there’s a substantial civil society scene, which we connected to a bit by organizing a session and hosting the reception at APC's first African IG summer school before the Durban ICANN meeting.   APC could help make something noteworthy happen here.  As Rafik also notes, if attached to the meeting, we could expand the intersessional so that members who not on Council or the NCUC/SG ECs can participate.  We added some slots for regular members at the DC meeting and CSG was keen to more than we agreed, so it could be salable.  And we could ask staff to cover some additional hotel nights for people to attend, since they’d be saving a very large pile of money on air fares.

In any event the location has to be negotiated with staff and CSG, but in terms of our opening position I like what Rafik’s advocating—more inclusive and more bang for the buck.

Best

Bill

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 05:08, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> 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 <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 <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

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161022/9235fa42/attachment-0002.html>