Hi all my name is Thato Mfikwe from South Africa, ICANN 57 fellow who joined NCUC.
Currently, I am in the learning phase of NCUC-discuss thus have limited capacity to comment and volunteer on some w/g but I just wanted to point out something.
I strongly support Klause's statement about the need to revisit our strategy, roadmap and priorities. This will also enable new comers to quickly catch up with activities and plans of NCUC holistically and based on realising the ultimate vision which should also encompass IGF, outreach and assisting grassroot initiatives linked to our entire vision and objectives of NCUC.
One of the issues I realised during ICANN 57 is that it is accepted that there is a low intake in DNS in the Southren regions but without internet access how is it expecpted that people and commmunites take advantage of this opprtunity to innovate and start developing their own content?
Secondly, outreach is important for capacity building, information dissemination and reaching out to the underserviced and unattended. IGF is another form of outreach.
Intersessional and other Onsite meetings should focus on some this plans, evaluate and monitor effectivess and progresom
I am glad to assist where possible, thanks.
Thato MfikweSouth Africa
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From: Klaus Stoll <[log in to unmask]> Date: 01/12/2016  10:00  (GMT+02:00) To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing 

    Dear All
    I wish we would spend as much time and energy on IG policy making
      topics as we spend time on the merits of various places around the
      world to host an ICANN Intersessional meeting. Can we talk about
      what we need to discuss t the meeting, the goals we want to
      achieve and how to get there. When we do this, the place might not
      be of such an importance.
    Yours
    Klaus
    PS: Kuawi, Hawaii. Definitely!

    
    

    
    

    On 12/1/2016 1:37 AM, Ayden Férdeline
      wrote:

    
    
      Sam,

      
      

        I don't think it was clear at all that some locations were said
        "almost in jest". What was made clear, however, on page 14 of the transcript, was the
        instruction to, "Please type [locations] into the chat. No
        tongue in cheek suggestions, please, because we can’t see or
        hear your tone when you're typing that in." If that instruction
        was ignored and our representatives on the call did instead
        suggest cities not well suited to hosting a meeting such as this
        one, I'm not sure who they thought they were serving.
      

      
      
        
          Ayden Férdeline

          
          linkedin.com/in/ferdeline

          
        
        

        
      
      

      
      
        -------- Original Message --------

        
        Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing

        
        Local Time: 1 December 2016 12:24 AM

        
        UTC Time: 1 December 2016 00:24

        
        From: [log in to unmask]

        
        To: [log in to unmask]

        
        

        
        In response to who made the suggestions for a location for
          the CGPH 

        
         Intersession, a review of the session Chat transcript

        
         makes it clear that the names were tossed out at the last
          minute, and 

        
         some serious and some almost in jest.

        
         

        
         One gets a sense from the overall records of the meeting,
          that Reykjavik 

        
         remains a front runner.

        
         The decision is supposed to be out on Friday, Dec 2nd.

        
         

        
        
https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Planning+-+Intersessional+2017%3A+Call+details%2C+recordings%2C+transcripts?preview=/63144502/63150134/acchat_ncphpc_291116_.pdf

        
         

        
         Sam L.