[NCUC-DISCUSS] Intercessional
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Oct 25 04:54:33 CEST 2016
I think this idea is really worth exploring, and would help with visa
issues as well.
Stephanie
On 2016-10-24 02:14, David Cake wrote:
> I think we should also consider something in between a physical
> meeting and a big adobe connect meeting, for example get really
> serious about remote participation. We could use video meeting
> facilities, maybe consider spreading a meeting across a few hubs
> connected by video conference facilities.
>
> Flying to Sydney or Singapore for me, Iceland or Istanbul or Geneva or
> London for Europeans, Boston or LA or Washington for the US, etc for a
> two day meeting is not that unreasonable a use of my time, and would
> be almost as useful for outreach if other groups from the region were
> there. Flying to LA or Washington for a two day meeting means I spend
> more time in the air than I do at the meeting, and if I don’t add an
> extra day or two I’m usually a zombie from jet lag anyway.
>
> There is a pretty good argument to be made that if we really want to
> broaden ICANN participation that a real commitment to much better
> remote participation including a better remote hub strategy is what is
> needed. Perhaps we could volunteer to trial some of that.
>
> David
>
>
>> On 24 Oct 2016, at 10:30 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc:*NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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/
>> 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 <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).
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/d1a1d811/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list