[NCUC-DISCUSS] Selection of ICANN meeting venues and dates

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Hello everyone,
IIn my opinion, the selection of meeting venues should be open up for
broader discussion, giving the community opportunity to make inputs that
will shape the ICANN's choice.

I will recommend a regular vote, be conducted by venue selection group.
This group would have taken into consideration most the factors of concern
to the community.

Thank you,
Benjamin


On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:06 AM, avri at acm.org <avri at doria.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The last one was more of a blue ribbon panel than a proper ccwg.
>
> I think this requires wide organized discussion.
>
> We can always invent some new process.
>
> Avri
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Date: 7/8/17 14:07 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>,
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Selection of ICANN meeting venues and dates
>
> Agree, the last one didn’t exactly end spectacularly, I think is something
> that staff can handle given the authority to do si.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of Niels ten Oever
> Sent: 08 July 2017 19:05
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Selection of ICANN meeting venues and dates
>
>
>
> On 07/08/2017 06:17 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > The CEO is asking:
> >
> > 1) Do you think it is timely to open up a broader discussion about
> > adding rules on how to choose meeting venues: factors such as gender
> > issues, democratic principles, and strict rules in observance of
> > religious holidays, etc., have been among the questions that have been
> > raised.
>
> Yes, I suggest similar approach to:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-
> venue-selection-process-07
>
> >
> > 2) How do you anticipate such a discussion to take place?
> >
> > Some of you have commented on this already on another thread at NCSG
> > mailing list. I will relay those comments. But question 2 needs more
> > answers.
> >
> > If you have any particular views please discuss here.
> >
>
> Maybe community could be asked for input, which could be re-worked by
> staff into a document which would be opened for public comment.
>
> Am not sure we would need a fully fledged ccwg for this.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
> > Best
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                      678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170709/b83ea0e0/attachment-0002.html>