Most of these suggestions must have been made in jest - or certainly without consideration of the costs or suitability of the locations. On 30/11/2016 20:38, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi James, > > I'll speak only for myself as I was on the call. > > The working assumption seems to be Reykjavik, pending input from the > ICANN Meeting staff. We were then asked to identify secondary choices > if Iceland for whatever reason did not work out. > > My suggestion, in the chat, was Nice. I made the suggestion after > considering the fact that we do have a few ICANN staff members who > live in the Nice-Cannes area who could easily attend, Nice has a > decent international airport with reasonable connections worldwide and > direct flights to Europe, Africa and North America, it is low season > there so prices hopefully would be reasonable and suitable facilities > abound. > > I'm not sure who proposed the other locations. Hopefully they will > respond. Thanks for the question. > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Nov 2016, at 19:16, James Gannon <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Can I ask which of those locations were suggested by NCSG? >> >> -James >> >> From: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Date: Wednesday 30 November 2016 at 19:02 >> To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Cc: "[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing >> >> So I have just been reviewing the transcript from the call on the >> 29th, and I am going to copy and paste the exotic litany of cities >> that were suggested for this intersessional: >> >> "Reykjavík, Stockholm, Nice, Portugal, Spain, Barcelona, Azores, >> Bermuda, Cape Verde Islands, South Georgia island, Tokyo, Hobart, >> Nu'uk, Edinburgh or Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wales" >> >> The Azores, really? I spent four days in Ponta Delgada last year and >> beautiful as it may be, the island only has intermittent Internet >> access, so remote participation would be out of the question. It also >> does not have daily flights, except to Lisbon, and we have no active >> community members in the vicinity. Is this really the most sensible >> location to suggest? >> >> I continue to maintain it is a waste of resources to the extreme to >> debate rotating this meeting, which is not public facing and is not >> for outreach, between anything other than ICANN hubs. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing >>> Local Time: 29 November 2016 8:17 AM >>> UTC Time: 29 November 2016 08:17 >>> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> https://www.mobileworldcongress.com/ >>> >>> MWC is 27 Feb - 2 March. >>> >>> -James >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29/11/2016, 08:06, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Milan, Stefania" >>> <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >>> >>> >Was RightsCon mentioned already? March 29-31 >>> > >>> > >>> >________________________________________ >>> >Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> per conto di Tapani >>> Tarvainen <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> >Inviato: martedì 29 novembre 2016 08.24.23 >>> >A:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >Oggetto: Re: NCPH Intersessional timing >>> > >>> >Thank you Stephanie and Ines. >>> > >>> >That makes it clear enough that February is our first choice. >>> > >>> >As for the potential conflicts, I got nothing absolute (as in, "I will >>> >definitely be going there") but a few potential ("may go") conflicts >>> >for April/May: >>> > >>> >Russian IGF, April 7-10 >>> >Internet 2: Global Summit, Washington DC April 23-26 >>> >IOT Forum, Madrid April 26 >>> >RIPE meeting, Budapest May 8-12 >>> > >>> >Some people also pointed out that Easter is in mid-April and would >>> >in effect make 13-17 April inpractical. >>> > >>> >Nobody has as yet offered any specific ICANN/IG events in August-September >>> >timeframe, but the beginning of academic year impedes several people then. >>> > >>> >If you have other potential conflicts in mind, please let me know ASAP. >>> > >>> >Tapani >>> > >>> >On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:23:53PM -0500, hfaiedh ines ([log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote: >>> > >>> >> I vote February, sorry for missing the vote. >>> >> >>> >> 2016-11-28 17:53 GMT-05:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>> >>[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: >>> >> >>> >> > I apologise for not voting....no internet access. I vote February. >>> >> > Stephanie >>> >> > >>> >> > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network. >>> >> > Original Message >>> >> > From: Tapani Tarvainen >>> >> > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:43 AM >>> >> > To:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >> > Reply To: Tapani Tarvainen >>> >> > Subject: NCPH Intersessional timing >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Dear all, >>> >> > >>> >> > Poll results from the intersessional timing options were, unfortunately >>> >> > but not unexpectedly, not conclusive. The choices could have been better >>> >> > phrased - some people emailed me offlist about that - but time was short. >>> >> > >>> >> > As it is, only 1 (can't make it) was clearly defined, the rest were >>> >> > basically just a scale of preferability, and so averaging them out >>> >> > makes at least some sense. >>> >> > >>> >> > Here's a summary of results, for each category and month averages >>> >> > (excluding "no opinion" ones) and in parentheses the number of "can't >>> >> > make it" choices: >>> >> > >>> >> > count category Feb Apr-May Aug-Sep >>> >> > 4 Councillors 3.7(1) 2.7(1) 2.0(2) >>> >> > 3 NCSG EC 3.7(1) 3.5(0) 2.0(0) >>> >> > 1 NCSG PC 5.0(0) 2.0(0) 3.0(0) >>> >> > 4 NCUC EC 4.8(0) 3.0(1) 3.5(0) >>> >> > 2 NPOC EC 4.5(0) 3.5(0) 4.0(0) >>> >> > 10 Other 3.3(2) 4.1(1) 3.7(2) >>> >> > >>> >> > 14 All except "Other" 4.2(2) 3.1(2) 3.4(2) >>> >> > 24 All 3.9(4) 3.5(3) 3.5(4) >>> >> > >>> >> > My conclusion is that there's no really strong preference to any, >>> >> > but February is slightly preferred (especially if we give less >>> >> > weight to "Other" category, who are less likely to participate). >>> >> > >>> >> > A couple of people commented that the latter two choices, but >>> >> > especially April/May, would depend a lot on the exact date: >>> >> > there're lots of other meetings and events people will be >>> >> > participating in that timeframe. >>> >> > >>> >> > The time should be decided tomorrow. Before that, we should try to >>> >> > answer the questions posed by Tony Holmes below. >>> >> > >>> >> > For the first one I guess we can answer "no": none of the times impose >>> >> > severe constraints for us, even though all of them are bad for at >>> >> > least two council/EC members. >>> >> > >>> >> > For question 4 it's not clear-cut, but given the poll results >>> >> > I'd suggest order would be (1) Feb (2) Aug-Sep (3) Apr-May >>> >> > (the latter two decided by non-Other category). >>> >> > >>> >> > For questions 2 and 3 I'd like to ask you all what other >>> >> > ICANN/IGF-related events you may be participating in the >>> >> > timeframes given (to reduce clutter on the list you can >>> >> > send them just to me and I'll summarize them here). >>> >> > >>> >> > Tapani >>> >> > >>> >> > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> >> > ----- >>> >> > >>> >> > Rob/All >>> >> > >>> >> > We agreed we will try and nail the date for the next intercessional during >>> >> > a >>> >> > 30 minute call next week. >>> >> > >>> >> > To try and avert what Klaus described as 'going around in circles', perhaps >>> >> > the following approach could help narrow the options prior to that call. >>> >> > >>> >> > It appeared that the possibility of tagging an intercessional on to the >>> >> > front or end of the Copenhagen or Johannesburg meetings was dismissed, >>> >> > which >>> >> > left us with 3 options on the table at the end of the call; >>> >> > >>> >> > - Week beginning February 13th >>> >> > >>> >> > - Late April/beginning of May >>> >> > >>> >> > - Beyond Johannesburg (effectively late Aug/early Sept) >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Suggest as representatives from our respective groups, in advance of the >>> >> > call we try and respond to Rob on the following questions; >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > 1. Do any of those options impose severe constraints on the ability >>> >> > of >>> >> > your members to attend? If so, what are they and can they be overcome? >>> >> > >>> >> > 2. During the suggested time frame for late April/beginning of May >>> >> > are >>> >> > there major conflicts due to other Internet Governance, Regional, standards >>> >> > bodies, trade association, other, meetings? If so what are they and when >>> >> > will they take place? >>> >> > >>> >> > 3. Beyond Johannesburg, late Aug/early Sept, are there major >>> >> > conflicts due to other Internet Governance, Regional, standards bodies, >>> >> > trade association, other meetings? If so what are they and when will they >>> >> > take place? >>> >> > >>> >> > 4. Can you rank the 3 options on the table in order of preference. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > If it proves possible to do this it may help focus thoughts during our 30 >>> >> > minute call. Just a suggestion. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Regards >>> >> > >>> >> > Tony >>> >> > >>> >> > ----- End forwarded message ----- >>> >> > >>> > >>> >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain >>> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, >>> dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking >>> of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or >>> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the >>> express permission of the sender. If you received this communication >>> in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any >>> computer. >> -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987