The call focused on the 'when' while stressing a need to carefully plan the 'what'. No decision was made on either question.
A call is scheduled next Tuesday to hopefully resolve the 'when' and perhaps the 'where'.
I completely support your concept of alternating the intersessional meetings between ICANN's hub sites. I also think consideration should be given to porting the intersessional on to either side of the GDD meeting, allowing perhaps for a day of overlap so we could meet with RySG and RrSG as well.
I disagree with you on Iceland for the current year. My goal is a meeting site where participants can get to fairly easily and with minimal time commitment. Reykjavik is 5 hours from the US east coast, 3 hours from major European cities, and has nonstop flights from the American west coast. That isn't good for our Asian, African or South American participants, but no city under consideration this year is (with discussion apparently revolving around North American and European locations). It's in the middle between North America and Europe and for budget travellers, if unfunded participants are allowed, it's a good location for both our North American and European members with two budget air carriers using Reykjavik as a hub.
However, as noted, I'd be happy to travel anywhere if it alleviated the visa issue for our visa challenged members. I see no reason to believe that Reykjavik would be more challenging for visas than any other location currently under consideration.
I wil note that I personally will be in Australia in February so although not visa challenged will have a long trip to Iceland if I am chosen to attend the meeting.
I have nothing to add on selection of participants other than I think you'd be a fine member of the NCUC or NCSG contingent if you decide to attend and through whatever means are allowed to.
-------- 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
>>>