[NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO

Tue Feb 7 21:05:01 CET 2017

Hi

These questions I numbered, they all have the backdrop of something
which is quite urgent, and it's about ICANN as an international
community.
NCUC being a civil society space within ICANN, is expected to be a
voice for this international community.
This is to be reconciled with the recent government changes in the US.
If we are not to ask the hard questions, we should at least be
involved in the process of dealing with these hard challenges.
If there is any perception the CEO needs to have, that should be one.
The community is here and willing that ICANN remains open to
international participation.

But as I've mentioned before, I do not really mind if we don't go
straight to the details of meeting allocation, governments appointee
selection or other such issues. I'm afraid these problems will present
themselves in due time (i.e. all appointees are highly controversial
and Puerto Rico may run the risk of being highly unattended).

I also do understand that the CEO is a public figure, so I'm not
trying to pin guilt here, but a need for dialogue will only be more
important as absences like the Amicus Brief non-participation only
increase.

Best,

Renata

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> You are correct in your assertion that Mexico does not fall into North America according to ICANN while Guam does. That never made much sense to me and we certainly could designate it a North American meeting in terms of benefits (NextGen, for example) while acknowledging the location as being outside the region officially.
>
> I disagree with you concerning the timing of questions but do believe the Board is who needs to be targeted in this regard, not the CEO. Location is a decision made by the Board and if the current Board decision is to be reversed it will be the Board that needs to do it.
>
> If we're going to switch the meeting it should be done as soon as possible so ICANN does not lose a substantial amount of money for cancelling contracts and the like. I do support switching the meeting largely because I consider the United States to be too unstable a political entity at the moment to plan anything there. There may be a major problem for many of our Members getting entrance to the USA, there may be as few difficulties as today. I take the American president at his word that he wants extreme vetting of all visitors and may increase the number of countries subject to extraordinary  vetting. We just don't know what the situation is going to be like in 18 months so should look for someplace a bit more stable.
>
> Montreal would be my first preference, North America without the English, but Bermuda and Mexico would also be good choices  that would avoid US jurisdiction. Frankly I'm in favour of switching the meeting to any place with a stable political and judicial system. The date change of the Hyberabad meeting did impact me negatively financially  and if there is another last minute change many of us would be unable to attend.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 14:46, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just in regards to the second point — Mexico does not fall within North America, according to ICANN's arbitrary geographic regions framework. I believe that meetings should remain within their region (at least until such time as we no longer have a framework requiring regional rotation of meetings), so if the March 2018 meeting does not go ahead in Puerto Rico (and I think it should - relocating the meeting given the circumstances would be a disproportionate response), it should     remain in North America, as defined by ICANN's geographic regions framework. I know this does not always happen in practice, but I was firmly opposed to relocating the meeting from Latin America to Europe last year. All this aside I do not think it is the best use of our limited time with the CEO to discuss venue locations, let alone for a meeting in excess of 12 months time.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ayden
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:18 pm, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <'raquino at gmail.com'> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I agree w/ Ed but also
>>>
>>> * With the visa travel ban, organizations such as IETF and ISOC are
>>> reviewing their actions for the time period the USA will be subject to
>>> their new president mandate, ICANN also issued a communiqué on this
>>> matter. What are the strategies in place to ensure international
>>> participation remains a reality in ICANN? Specifically updates on:
>>> 1) Will there be a contract with a visa agency to help with travel
>>> arrangements?
>>> 2) Will the meeting in Puerto Rico remain as planned? Couldn't it move
>>> to Mexico?
>>> 3) Will ICANN reassure its commitment to diversity, which NCUC is
>>> devoted to work towards too in WS2, and work on increasing
>>> participation and leadership position from developing and least
>>> developed countries and women?
>>> 4) ICANN jurisdiction being in the USA, can we be assured ICANN will
>>> try to safeguard legally its international status?
>>> 5) Is ICANN monitoring the transition process of the Secretary of
>>> Commerce, given that with the former appointee ICANN had extensive
>>> dialogue which ensured the IANA transition came to completion?
>>>
>>> [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
>>>
>>> Edward Morris egmorris1 at toast.net
>>> Mon Feb 6 14:33:42 CET 2017
>>>
>>> Previous message (by thread): [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
>>> Next message (by thread): [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting with ICANN CEO
>>> Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Hi Farzi,
>>>
>>> Here's one:
>>>
>>> Ninety seven American hi tech companies signed an amicus brief supporting
>>> the State of Washington's lawsuit against United States President Donald
>>> Trump (
>>> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/amicus-brief-by-tech-com
>>> panies/2322/ ) and his travel ban.
>>>
>>> ICANN is an American high tech corporation impacted by the ban.
>>>
>>> Did:
>>>
>>> 1. ICANN consider joining with its fellow American hi tech companies in
>>> signing onto this brief?,
>>> 2. If so, why did it decide not to do so?
>>> 3. If not, why not?
>>> 4. Does the CEO agree that the travel ban has serious repercussions for
>>> ICANN? If so, what does ICANN intend to do, if anything, to mitigate the
>>> harm this ban is causing and potentially will, if extended, continue to
>>> cause ICANN corporate and community?
>>>
>>> Thanks for considering,
>>>
>>> Ed Morris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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