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 >>