On Nov 24 01:50, David Cake ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> 	Wasn’t there some remote participation in some previous
> infer-sessionals? I do not recall them ever being ‘closed’, just
> with limited travel support (but I did not attend the last one).

I asked for clarification on this point. There will indeed be remote
participation for all, the meeting isn't closed in the sense of being
in any way secret, but the number of physical participants is fixed,
regardless of possible independent funding.

But as already noted we can choose our participants as we like -
councillors and EC members have been the default but other choices can
be made.

Tapani


On Nov 24 11:46, Benedetta Rossi ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> For balance purposes for the discussions, the in-person attendance is
> limited to selected attendees for each group representing the
> SG/Constituency, and remote participation will be provided for other NCPH
> Members to listen to the meetings remotely. The in-person slots are not
> based only on funding but to ensure balance within the discussions for each
> NCPH Stakeholder Group or Constituency.
> 
> In 2015 I believe exceptions were granted for local members from certain
> groups to join the meetings, but based on my recollections they were allowed
> to attend certain meetings, ³replacing² other members to ensure balance of
> numbers was met within each meeting slot for each group.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any further questions,
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Benedetta
> --
> Benedetta Rossi | Policy & Community Engagement Analyst
> [log in to unmask] | +33.610.38.27.02
> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers