Most of these suggestions must have been made in jest - or certainly
without consideration of the costs or suitability of the locations.
On 30/11/2016 20:38, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I'll speak only for myself as I was on the call.
>
> The working assumption seems to be Reykjavik, pending input from the
> ICANN Meeting staff. We were then asked to identify secondary choices
> if Iceland for whatever reason did not work out.
>
> My suggestion, in the chat, was Nice. I made the suggestion after
> considering the fact that we do have a few ICANN staff members who
> live in the Nice-Cannes area who could easily attend, Nice has a
> decent international airport with reasonable connections worldwide and
> direct flights to Europe, Africa and North America, it is low season
> there so prices hopefully would be reasonable and suitable facilities
> abound.
>
> I'm not sure who proposed the other locations. Hopefully they will
> respond. Thanks for the question.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 19:16, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Can I ask which of those locations were suggested by NCSG?
>>
>> -James
>>
>> From: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Date: Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 19:02
>> To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Cc: "[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing
>>
>> So I have just been reviewing the transcript from the call on the
>> 29th, and I am going to copy and paste the exotic litany of cities
>> that were suggested for this intersessional:
>>
>> "Reykjavík, Stockholm, Nice, Portugal, Spain, Barcelona, Azores,
>> Bermuda, Cape Verde Islands, South Georgia island, Tokyo, Hobart,
>> Nu'uk, Edinburgh or Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wales"
>>
>> The Azores, really? I spent four days in Ponta Delgada last year and
>> beautiful as it may be, the island only has intermittent Internet
>> access, so remote participation would be out of the question. It also
>> does not have daily flights, except to Lisbon, and we have no active
>> community members in the vicinity. Is this really the most sensible
>> location to suggest?
>>
>> I continue to maintain it is a waste of resources to the extreme to
>> debate rotating this meeting, which is not public facing and is not
>> for outreach, between anything other than ICANN hubs.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing
>>> Local Time: 29 November 2016 8:17 AM
>>> UTC Time: 29 November 2016 08:17
>>> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> https://www.mobileworldcongress.com/
>>>
>>> MWC is 27 Feb - 2 March.
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/11/2016, 08:06, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Milan, Stefania"
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Was RightsCon mentioned already? March 29-31
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >________________________________________
>>> >Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> per conto di Tapani
>>> Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >Inviato: martedì 29 novembre 2016 08.24.23
>>> >A:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >Oggetto: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing
>>> >
>>> >Thank you Stephanie and Ines.
>>> >
>>> >That makes it clear enough that February is our first choice.
>>> >
>>> >As for the potential conflicts, I got nothing absolute (as in, "I will
>>> >definitely be going there") but a few potential ("may go") conflicts
>>> >for April/May:
>>> >
>>> >Russian IGF, April 7-10
>>> >Internet 2: Global Summit, Washington DC April 23-26
>>> >IOT Forum, Madrid April 26
>>> >RIPE meeting, Budapest May 8-12
>>> >
>>> >Some people also pointed out that Easter is in mid-April and would
>>> >in effect make 13-17 April inpractical.
>>> >
>>> >Nobody has as yet offered any specific ICANN/IG events in August-September
>>> >timeframe, but the beginning of academic year impedes several people then.
>>> >
>>> >If you have other potential conflicts in mind, please let me know ASAP.
>>> >
>>> >Tapani
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:23:53PM -0500, hfaiedh ines ([log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I vote February, sorry for missing the vote.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2016-11-28 17:53 GMT-05:00 Stephanie Perrin <
>>> >>[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>> >>
>>> >> > I apologise for not voting....no internet access. I vote February.
>>> >> > Stephanie
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
>>> >> > Original Message
>>> >> > From: Tapani Tarvainen
>>> >> > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:43 AM
>>> >> > To:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> > Reply To: Tapani Tarvainen
>>> >> > Subject: NCPH Intersessional timing
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Dear all,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Poll results from the intersessional timing options were, unfortunately
>>> >> > but not unexpectedly, not conclusive. The choices could have been better
>>> >> > phrased - some people emailed me offlist about that - but time was short.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As it is, only 1 (can't make it) was clearly defined, the rest were
>>> >> > basically just a scale of preferability, and so averaging them out
>>> >> > makes at least some sense.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Here's a summary of results, for each category and month averages
>>> >> > (excluding "no opinion" ones) and in parentheses the number of "can't
>>> >> > make it" choices:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > count category Feb Apr-May Aug-Sep
>>> >> > 4 Councillors 3.7(1) 2.7(1) 2.0(2)
>>> >> > 3 NCSG EC 3.7(1) 3.5(0) 2.0(0)
>>> >> > 1 NCSG PC 5.0(0) 2.0(0) 3.0(0)
>>> >> > 4 NCUC EC 4.8(0) 3.0(1) 3.5(0)
>>> >> > 2 NPOC EC 4.5(0) 3.5(0) 4.0(0)
>>> >> > 10 Other 3.3(2) 4.1(1) 3.7(2)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 14 All except "Other" 4.2(2) 3.1(2) 3.4(2)
>>> >> > 24 All 3.9(4) 3.5(3) 3.5(4)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My conclusion is that there's no really strong preference to any,
>>> >> > but February is slightly preferred (especially if we give less
>>> >> > weight to "Other" category, who are less likely to participate).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A couple of people commented that the latter two choices, but
>>> >> > especially April/May, would depend a lot on the exact date:
>>> >> > there're lots of other meetings and events people will be
>>> >> > participating in that timeframe.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The time should be decided tomorrow. Before that, we should try to
>>> >> > answer the questions posed by Tony Holmes below.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For the first one I guess we can answer "no": none of the times impose
>>> >> > severe constraints for us, even though all of them are bad for at
>>> >> > least two council/EC members.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For question 4 it's not clear-cut, but given the poll results
>>> >> > I'd suggest order would be (1) Feb (2) Aug-Sep (3) Apr-May
>>> >> > (the latter two decided by non-Other category).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > For questions 2 and 3 I'd like to ask you all what other
>>> >> > ICANN/IGF-related events you may be participating in the
>>> >> > timeframes given (to reduce clutter on the list you can
>>> >> > send them just to me and I'll summarize them here).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Tapani
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> >> > -----
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Rob/All
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We agreed we will try and nail the date for the next intercessional during
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > 30 minute call next week.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > To try and avert what Klaus described as 'going around in circles', perhaps
>>> >> > the following approach could help narrow the options prior to that call.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It appeared that the possibility of tagging an intercessional on to the
>>> >> > front or end of the Copenhagen or Johannesburg meetings was dismissed,
>>> >> > which
>>> >> > left us with 3 options on the table at the end of the call;
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Week beginning February 13th
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Late April/beginning of May
>>> >> >
>>> >> > - Beyond Johannesburg (effectively late Aug/early Sept)
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Suggest as representatives from our respective groups, in advance of the
>>> >> > call we try and respond to Rob on the following questions;
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 1. Do any of those options impose severe constraints on the ability
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > your members to attend? If so, what are they and can they be overcome?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2. During the suggested time frame for late April/beginning of May
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > there major conflicts due to other Internet Governance, Regional, standards
>>> >> > bodies, trade association, other, meetings? If so what are they and when
>>> >> > will they take place?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 3. Beyond Johannesburg, late Aug/early Sept, are there major
>>> >> > conflicts due to other Internet Governance, Regional, standards bodies,
>>> >> > trade association, other meetings? If so what are they and when will they
>>> >> > take place?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 4. Can you rank the 3 options on the table in order of preference.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If it proves possible to do this it may help focus thoughts during our 30
>>> >> > minute call. Just a suggestion.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regards
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Tony
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ----- End forwarded message -----
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>>> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
>>> dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking
>>> of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
>>> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the
>>> express permission of the sender. If you received this communication
>>> in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
>>> computer.
>>
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
|
