Hi

Planning these meetings seems to involve a lot more complexity, coordination and debate these days compared to when we started.  When I was involved as NCUC chair in the organizing effort for the 2013 meeting in LA https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/InterSessional+-+January+2013 <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/InterSessional+-+January+2013> and the 2015 meeting in DC https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+-+January+2015#Headings--858314009 <https://community.icann.org/display/ncph/Intersessional+-+January+2015#Headings--858314009> the debates were primarily between NCSG and CSG over the substantive agendas. Picking the locations and agreeing about participants were not a bit deal.  Not sure what’s changed, but for the record, 

*ICANN did not mandate how the two groups would be composed, staff left that up to each community to decide.  We defaulted to EC members and Councilors having ‘first right of refusal’ on slots but could have done something else just as well.  I’d have to dig through old mail for a definitive answer but think that when some of those people couldn’t make it, substitutes were selected by consensus among the people involved in the planning (e.g. chairs) in consultation with their respective tribes.

*In DC we decided to be more flexible about the body count as the CSG wanted to bring a few extra locals.  So the final deal was NCUC had 6 slots (all the EC came), NCSG had 9 (starting assumption was Councilors & 3 from EC, but a number of these couldn’t make it so others took their places), and NPOC had 6, 21 total.  In contrast, the BC had 8, ISPCP had 7, and IPC had 9, 24 total.  In addition we had the NCA + Markus as our Board member. And there was remote participation.  Bottom line, the exact numbers were not set in stone. If someone now wants to negotiate something else it might be possible, although I suspect staff will want to cap the number of funded travel slots at like 21/21 unless persuaded, and the size of the venue’s another factor.

Hope this is useful.

Best

Bill




> On Nov 23, 2016, at 12:43, 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

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
************************************************