I feel like I am missing some background here.
Could someone who was on the planning call for the intercessional yesterday please share a brief summary of what was discussed? Before we even get to the allocation of travel slots and who will be attending, it would be helpful to know if the dates for this meeting have been determined and if a location has been set? And if not, when might we expect this to occur? I have tried to find a recording of the call on Confluence, but it is not yet uploaded.
I also have to echo James' comments in his initial email to the list today; I do not think Iceland is a logical choice for a meeting (I distinctly remember last month the justification from some for the intersessionals continuing being because of outreach!), and I think it would be a better use of resources for meetings to rotate between ICANN hubs. The amount of time that is spent debating a location's virtues (not to mention the staff time required to scout conference venues, and so forth) seems to me to be a poor allocation of our resources.
I might be interested in attending the intersessional, though I am neither part of the ExCom or a GNSO Councillor, but I'd make that determination (provided it were open to a wider number of participants) based on the agenda - which isn't available - and not the city in which the meeting is taking place.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Intercessional Planning
Local Time: 23 November 2016 12:53 PM
UTC Time: 23 November 2016 12:53
Yes depending on dates and location, I may or may not be local, and either way may fund my own participation as I hope to raise the topic of NCPH coordination around the CSC Liaison role that I hold and also hopefully cooperation over the SSR Review team to which I am currently an applicant and hope to be a member of when the selection is made.
My understanding is there will be a call for agenda topics to the EC at some point and was planning on raising the topic at that point.
But if Im told that is is not an open meeting and is going to be restricted to councillors and ExCom then I will not participate obviously, but in general I think that it would have been a great opportunity for us to identify areas we can work with the CSG on.
So please take this as a request for my attendance (Depending on date and location) to be passed on to whomever it needs to be.
-James
>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
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>