[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional

[Mueller, Milton L]

Tapani
Thanks for the information but I have to point out that you still have not made a reasonable case for having an intersessional meeting at all. What does it accomplish that could not also be done at a regular ICANN meeting or via remote participation tools? 

If it is "already decided" to have one as you claim, then I have to insist that our leadership bring to the ICANN staff the objections of a substantial number of our members.

These meetings are a costly expenditure of time and money that cannot be justified based on the outcomes of. The travel time often exceeds the meeting time, and these gigantic holes in our calendars distract us from the actual policy development work the community is supposed to be doing. There may indeed be people in the NCSG who view ICANN as a free travel club, but I am not one of them, and neither are a lot of others here. We need to move away from that attitude. ICANN's GNSO exists for policy development, full stop. 

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 3:15 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional
> 
> The preparation process is already well in the way, it is realistically too late
> for any really radical options.
> 
> Dropping the meeting altogether and replacing it with a virtual one is not
> going to happen. From what I've heard, other constituencies in NCPH, all in
> CSG as well as NPOC, want it, and special budget request for it has been made
> and approved long time ago.
> 
> Of course NCUC could elect to stay away or participate only remotely, but I
> don't think it'd stop the meeting from happening and certainly NCUC would
> not get the travel money to use for other purposes.
> 
> Merging the meeting with a regular ICANN meeting, whether Copenhagen or
> Johannesburg, isn't much more likely. Some CSG participants (ISPs if I recall
> correctly) basically flat out vetoed the idea.
> 
> Such alternatives may be considered for the next time, indeed it might be
> good idea to put them on the agenda of this meeting, but they're not realistic
> now.
> 
> Location and exact timing are still in the air, however.
> 
> We clearly would like to get it out of the US, and that may be possible, but not
> easy. And the further from USA we propose, the more CSG will oppose it and
> the more likely we'll end up in the US after all.
> 
> I do appreciate that as seen from Africa or Asia or Australia it may not make
> much of a difference whether the meeting is in USA or Europe, but still I think
> there'd be useful symbolic significance in getting it out of the USA at least,
> even if not very far from there.
> 
> As for Reykjavík:
> 
> Yes it'd be cold but not extremely so. Statistically there's only 10% chance of
> being below freezing point and practically never below -7°C, and its airport is
> less likely to be closed due to a snowstorm than that of Washington DC.
> (Reykjavík gets fairly little snow given it's latitude. I assume Bill's description
> of "a meter of snow" was hyperbole, but even if it did happen, I'm sure
> Icelanders can clear their streets and roads of snow as well as Finns can. Yes, I
> have actual experience of over meter deep snow.)
> 
> It is also in general a fairly expensive city (Finnish government rates it almost
> exactly same as Singapore, don't know why US thinks there's such a big
> difference), but what matters there is the total cost, including travel, hotels
> and meeting facilities, and it's not high season there in February so they may
> be cheap. But I'm sure ICANN travel staff is busy sorting it out and will tell us if
> it turns out to be too expensive.
> 
> As for visas, USA isn't exactly easy either - in last intersessional in LA two
> intended NCSG participants couldn't make it because of visa problems. I have
> no reason to believe Iceland would be particularly bad in that respect.
> 
> Outreach isn't a major focus of the intersessional, but I can't help observing
> that political situation in Iceland has changed drastically over just a few years,
> with Pirate Party likely to be in government next year, and we might well find
> a surprising number of interested civil society people there now.
> 
> And it would be easy enough to reach from the USA to make it palatable to
> CSG. Yes, I know, a lousy reason, but realistically we have to make that into
> account.
> 
> That said, on general principles I think we should not always settle on "easy"
> locations, whether thinking of visa issues or average travel distances or
> whatever. There is value in diversity and indeed in demonstrating difficulties
> in different places, and I would not object to a meeting in Hobarth or La Paz or
> Kigali or Ulan Bator, or for that matter Verkhoyansk (that'd be cold enough
> even for Stephanie I think, with temperatures regularly below -60°C).
> 
> But sometimes better is the enemy of the good, and while I have nothing
> against proposing any alternate locations, if the real choice ends up being
> between Reykjavík and USA, I'll vote for the former.
> 
> Is there anybody here who'd really prefer the US in that case?
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss