[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

Mon Oct 24 06:04:14 CEST 2016

+1 to online meetings, avoiding all hustle and costs that goes with F2F
meetings from zero day proposal to the the safe departure.

Regarding the outreach concerns, a different program could be introduced
with communities of countries that lack members. That will have more
effective results because a tailored program with local communities, and
few NCSG members traveling around to conduct such meetings will bring more
diversity members to be engaged onboard and make better value for the money
spent. Unless, the tendency here to bring few vs. lots per year.

Let me intervene in the discussion of the intersessional location.

I have a brilliant idea about how to resolve the meeting location debate.

Don’t have a physical meeting at all.

What is the purpose of this meeting? I hear two motives for it. One is
liaising among the CSG and NCSG. Building better coordination among the
user SGs. OK, if we want to liaise with the NCPH we can do it in Adobe
connect. A 3 hour meeting via Adobe and we can talk about all the things we
need to talk about, and everyone can attend (although even with these
meetings coordinating time is difficult). Maybe 2 3 hour meetings in a
single day, or spread across two days.

I also hear that “outreach” is another reason. I think that’s a patently
absurd add-on to the real agenda, something to retroactively justify the
enormous amount of time and money spent. But if we really do want outreach
we can all do it in our own communities without traveling, at a fraction of
the cost. $200 would support a pretty nice happy hour meeting and for $1000
you could have 5 of them in 5 different locations. Obviously, if outreach
is a goal it makes no sense to go to Iceland.

I think too many of us are getting carried away with the idea that we need
to travel to do ICANN’s work. I think ICANN staff has also gotten caught up
in the false idea that keeping people busy running around is contributing
to ICANN’s mission. The mission of ICANN is not tourism.

Please, folks, let’s stand up for common sense and insist that no F2F
meeting needs to take place. And if it does take place it should not be in
Washington DC again. If they try to hold it anyway, we should simply refuse
to attend and make it abundantly clear why we are refusing and kill the
legitimacy of this meeting.

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

*From:* Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On
Behalf Of *Michael Oghia
*Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:56 AM
*To:* Farzaneh Badiei <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
*Cc:* NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
*Subject:* Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

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

_______________________________________________
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/20161024/71ecf050/attachment-0002.html>