Thanks Tapani. It may also be worthwhile to consider that there may be locals able to attend without travel at all…, depending on where the inter-sessional takes place, right? If I’m not mistaken, that has happened in the past when the meeting was held in Washington DC.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr,
> 
> Reading Bill's description about DC intersessional (when
> I was not involved), seems things have been a bit fluid.
> 
> The last time there was a definite restriction on the number
> participants regardless of funding, but it may have been due to venue
> size only (I recall discussions about negotiation balance from earlier
> events, but they may not be relevant anymore). So while the number of
> funded travellers is certainly fixed now, it may be more self-funded
> participants could join, but that's not certain, and won't be until we
> know the venue.
> 
> Are we likely to have many people interested in coming with their own
> funding? If so I'll raise the issue with the planning group and try
> to make sure they can all attend - please let me know.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Nov 23 14:28, Amr Elsadr ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tapani,
>> 
>> If you would provide some clarification on this, it may be helpful. Is there a difference between funded travelers and those who wish and are able to participate at their own expense? I don’t see any distinction between the two in your email below. My understanding has always been that these meetings are open, but only with limited funding for travelers. I was never aware of any rule that said equal numbers from the two SGs are required in the room.
>> 
>> Also…, remote participation, along with publicly archived transcripts/recordings, have always been available in the past. So even if the numbers of in-room attendees is equal, remote participation may upset that balance.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Nov 23, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Nov 23 10:42, James Gannon ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tapani can I see where that decision to restrict attendance to
>>>> Councillors and ExCom members was taken and documented please? As
>>>> that was not the case in previous intercessional.
>>> 
>>> As far as I know it's been the case in every intersessional, with the
>>> obvious caveat that when some councillor or EC member could not
>>> attend, others could be (and were) substituted.
>>> 
>>> I don't think anything would stop us from excluding some of them,
>>> regardless of their ability to come, in favour of others deemed more
>>> important if we choose to, but the number of participants is fixed.
>>> 
>>> Formally it was decided in the spring when the budget request was
>>> made, negotiating with CSG and staff, but in practice we simply
>>> followed precedent and staff-given budget constraints. If I remember
>>> correctly people involved were me, Rafik and Rudi from NCSG and
>>> similar number of CSG folks. I could dig up the correspondence and
>>> budget request if need be. I don't remember who decided it and how for
>>> the first intersessional in 2013.
>>> 
>>> Also, there have been "social events" where local non-participants
>>> could be invited. But in the actual meeting it was always the case
>>> that CSG and NCSG had to have same number of people, based on
>>> the number of EC members and councillors.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>