Thanks Rinalia, will do. On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Everyone.

Matt has created a wiki for the development of an ALAC statement on the ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal - https://community.icann.org/x/_5MoAg.

Please contribute your thoughts and ideas there on this matter so that the input is trackable and staff can follow-up quickly.

Best regards,

Rinalia

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM Subject: Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>

This issue will hit some aspiring developing countries hard and affect diversity. I think the ALAC needs to respond to this. It is difficult to argue against the facilities requirement with an increasingly growing ICANN meeting size, but the least that they should do is continuously and progressively identify newly emerging sites in developing countries that meet the criteria so that the pool of potential sites grows in support of diversity.

I look forward to hear the opinion of others, especially on the regional rotation proposal contained in the document (ie., for the period between 2014-2016 first meeting of the year in 2 cities in Asia Pacific, second meeting in 2 cities in Europe and third meeting rotated among other regions).

Best regards,

Rinalia Abdul Rahim

sent via galaxy tab ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications@icann.org> Date: 3 Oct 2012 08:22 Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal To: <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>

ICANN News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02oct12-en.htm

____________________________________

ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal

2 October 2012

Comment Period Opens on 2 October 2012

Categories/Tags:

* Policy Processes * Transparency/Accountability * Reviews/Improvements * Participation * Events/Conferences * Operations/Finances

Purpose (Brief):

The ICANN meeting operations department is submitting for public comment a proposal on a Consolidated Meetings Strategy for ICANN Public Meetings. The purpose of this document is to advise the ICANN community of the issues surrounding the current process for selecting ICANN Public Meeting locations, and to propose an alternate method of doing so.

Public Comment Box Link:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-proposal-2012-02oct12-e...

____________________________________

This message was sent to rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

Manage Your Subscription:

http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20657474&l=6333&s=R4TD&m=894... _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

I just posted this on the wiki: Gone are the days when ICANN would sit back, like the olympics, and be courted by governments wanting to demonstrate their geek cred. So if ICANN gets to pick the locations, it's sensible to have a transparent rationale for its choices. Not sure I agree with this particular process, but it's a useful step. As ICANN is looking to hold its meetings at convention centres (with nearby hotels) rather than within the hotels themselves, the number of cities capable of accommodating meetings is still rather high (and indeed this was the model used in Brussels and Nairobi). So that isn't a significantly limiting factor. So far, the intent of having the meetings in different cities appeared to be five-fold: 1. Appear to the public to be globally engaged, to counter ICANN's legal status as a California corporation 2. Engage the local community in ICANN issues 3. Expose ICANN and its usual stakeholders to a global diversity of needs and sensitivities 4. Be less expensive to attend (at least to the one-in-five meetings in your region) 5. Allow host cities and/or governments to show off their Internet savvy to the world So let's examine how well these are working: *Appear to the public to be globally engaged:* As a public relations tactic the current roadshow presents an image of a globally active ICANN. Yet the reality is that ICANN meetings are, by and large, the same rich-world group of vested interests and lawyers following ICANN around wherever it goes. And the results of all these years of travel are ICANN policies that still act as if the global south doesn't exist. So maybe the issue here is that nobody's being fooled anymore, so perhaps ICANN should drop its pretences. *Engage the local community: *I guess I just don't see it. A handful of local NGOs and governments attend shows who otherwise wouldn't participate, but the reality is that this effect is far more claimed than realized. How many ALSs have joined as a direct result of an organization attending a local ICANN meeting? Shock exposure of the local community to ICANN meetings dominated by experienced, aggressive players and full of technical jargon is not what I'd consider an optimal form of outreach. If ICANN would budget for preparatory meetings to engage communities in advance, this might be worthwhile. But this is not happening. So what we have is an expensive charade. *Expose ICANN participants to diverse needs and sensitivities*: Nice intent, no proof that there's anything to this outside of delegates getting a taste of local food (and whatever culture they can glean from the Gala). And maybe some local comments injected into the Public Forum (which, like most other comments at the forum, are for the speakers' benefit and not the audience's). *Be less expensive to attend* Nope. For every person who saves money by going to Durban or Cartagena, a hundred more are paying double or triple what it would cost to go to a global hub city. In terms of the sheer practicality, it might actually be less expensive to have an AFRALO general assembly in Paris than in the region (ditto for LACRALO and Miami) – but that's the fault of the travel industry, not ICANN. *Allow hosts to show off their Internet savvy*: I'd say that pool is pretty well exhausted. ICANN now struggles just to find hosts willing to bear the costs of the Gala. Nobody needs ICANN anymore for publicity; indeed, given the noise in WCIT and elsewhere, it seems that ICANN may be actively shunned by some of the very places where it *should* be for the purposes listed above (Moscow, for instance). Anyway... this is just food for thought as we determine a response.

In my opinion this approach this is in opposite to the new outreach strategy Fadi underlined during our working session in Toronto. I think ICANN must undertake any effort to organise meetings in most parts in the world as possible, maybe the improved and advanced outreach strategy will strengthen most of the points Evan lined out. Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2012 16:57 An: Evan Leibovitch Cc: ALAC Working List Betreff: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal Hi Evan On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

*Appear to the public to be globally engaged:* As a public relations tactic the current roadshow presents an image of a globally active ICANN. Yet the reality is that ICANN meetings are, by and large, the same rich-world group of vested interests and lawyers following ICANN around wherever it goes. And the results of all these years of travel are ICANN policies that still act as if the global south doesn't exist. So maybe the issue here is that nobody's being fooled anymore, so perhaps ICANN should drop its pretences.

Strongly agree on the problem, but not the solution. How about pressing to get serious on moving from pretense to reality? ALAC and NCSG have long expressed shared concerns here without managing to take joint action...

*Engage the local community: *I guess I just don't see it. A handful of local NGOs and governments attend shows who otherwise wouldn't

participate,

but the reality is that this effect is far more claimed than realized. How many ALSs have joined as a direct result of an organization attending a local ICANN meeting? Shock exposure of the local community to ICANN meetings dominated by experienced, aggressive players and full of technical jargon is not what I'd consider an optimal form of outreach. If ICANN would budget for preparatory meetings to engage communities in advance, this might be worthwhile. But this is not happening. So what we have is an expensive charade.

Strongly agree on the problem, but I wouldn't go quite as far as to conclude it's a charade. But we need to have a serious global outreach effort that is driven by the community with support from staff, rather than the reverse.

*Expose ICANN participants to diverse needs and sensitivities*: Nice intent, no proof that there's anything to this outside of delegates

getting

a taste of local food (and whatever culture they can glean from the Gala). And maybe some local comments injected into the Public Forum (which, like most other comments at the forum, are for the speakers' benefit and not the audience's).

Might require closer cooperation with hosts to design some useful program elements. In the meanwhile, Verisign's having a hockey outing, and I nominate you to lead us all to the poutine dispensary of your choosing.

*Be less expensive to attend* Nope. For every person who saves money by going to Durban or Cartagena, a hundred more are paying double or triple what it would cost to go to a global hub city. In terms of the sheer practicality, it might actually be less expensive to have an AFRALO

general

assembly in Paris than in the region (ditto for LACRALO and Miami) – but that's the fault of the travel industry, not ICANN.

But maybe the people paying double can afford it more than those saving money? The costs are unfortunate but most regulars apparently can manage, so spreading it around in developing countries remains worth doing. We simply need to leverage it better. I will never forget (and have probably mentioned in two many places) attending the board public engagement meeting that JJ organized in Nairobi and seeing 2-3 Africans and fifty of us usual suspects around the table. Let's follow in the footsteps of George Costanza and do the opposite.

*Allow hosts to show off their Internet savvy*: I'd say that pool is

pretty

well exhausted. ICANN now struggles just to find hosts willing to bear the costs of the Gala. Nobody needs ICANN anymore for publicity; indeed, given the noise in WCIT and elsewhere, it seems that ICANN may be actively shunned by some of the very places where it *should* be for the purposes listed above (Moscow, for instance). Anyway... this is just food for thought as we determine a response.

Maybe after Beijing we could go in search of other great firewallers…. Tehran beckons…:-) Bill _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)

Dear Alan, in the IFG fora (i.e. EuroDIG, which much smaller in participation) we made the experience that hosting a meeting in a specific country, could be, not always will be, a initial point to get a few people engaged. Sometimes even high level participants. As the multistakeholder model is still a new beast in many countries in the world we can not expect too much outcome, but still we should try and take the few on board. I am sure we would not have got them if they where not the host country. I also fear that hosting a meeting in 2-3 of the same places turns out the become a routine (probably more effective then) but I am not sure if something like a showcase would have ever happened. It started in Nairobi, before my time, right? Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012 18:49 An: sandra hoferichter; 'ALAC Working List' Betreff: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal I am not convinced that the present proposal is optimal, but I am less sure I agree here. I have long advocated EFFECTIVE presence around the world is far more important than a token meeting in a country once every 10+ years. The political and real benefit to the Internet community of holding a meeting in a country is short-lived and rarely spills over into neighbouring countries to any great extent. If the type of presences and focusing that Fadi describes can be made a reality, it will be a very different world than we have today. The current proposal *might* be a valid way to get there. I would like to see a far more detailed analysis than has been made public so far. Alan At 14/10/2012 12:26 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:

In my opinion this approach this is in opposite to the new outreach strategy Fadi underlined during our working session in Toronto. I think ICANN must undertake any effort to organise meetings in most parts in the world as possible, maybe the improved and advanced outreach strategy will strengthen most of the points Evan lined out.

Sandra

Once again, Evan's analysis is spot on; we know the problems and all agree on the multiple missed opportunities. I will differ some on the solution. Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment. And I'm sure we were only intended to be bit players. But I'm say words should indict behaviour. I think there is still an opening to change what might've been a charade into laudable action. Yes, I think Intents #1 & #2 as Evan document are still worthy of support. Yes, results to date are trending poor. So let's knock heads together, engage and find a way to hold ICANN's feet to the fire. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

I just posted this on the wiki:

Gone are the days when ICANN would sit back, like the olympics, and be courted by governments wanting to demonstrate their geek cred. So if ICANN gets to pick the locations, it's sensible to have a transparent rationale for its choices. Not sure I agree with this particular process, but it's a useful step.

As ICANN is looking to hold its meetings at convention centres (with nearby hotels) rather than within the hotels themselves, the number of cities capable of accommodating meetings is still rather high (and indeed this was the model used in Brussels and Nairobi). So that isn't a significantly limiting factor.

So far, the intent of having the meetings in different cities appeared to be five-fold:

1. Appear to the public to be globally engaged, to counter ICANN's legal status as a California corporation 2. Engage the local community in ICANN issues 3. Expose ICANN and its usual stakeholders to a global diversity of needs and sensitivities 4. Be less expensive to attend (at least to the one-in-five meetings in your region) 5. Allow host cities and/or governments to show off their Internet savvy to the world

So let's examine how well these are working:

*Appear to the public to be globally engaged:* As a public relations tactic the current roadshow presents an image of a globally active ICANN. Yet the reality is that ICANN meetings are, by and large, the same rich-world group of vested interests and lawyers following ICANN around wherever it goes. And the results of all these years of travel are ICANN policies that still act as if the global south doesn't exist. So maybe the issue here is that nobody's being fooled anymore, so perhaps ICANN should drop its pretences.

*Engage the local community: *I guess I just don't see it. A handful of local NGOs and governments attend shows who otherwise wouldn't participate, but the reality is that this effect is far more claimed than realized. How many ALSs have joined as a direct result of an organization attending a local ICANN meeting? Shock exposure of the local community to ICANN meetings dominated by experienced, aggressive players and full of technical jargon is not what I'd consider an optimal form of outreach. If ICANN would budget for preparatory meetings to engage communities in advance, this might be worthwhile. But this is not happening. So what we have is an expensive charade.

*Expose ICANN participants to diverse needs and sensitivities*: Nice intent, no proof that there's anything to this outside of delegates getting a taste of local food (and whatever culture they can glean from the Gala). And maybe some local comments injected into the Public Forum (which, like most other comments at the forum, are for the speakers' benefit and not the audience's).

*Be less expensive to attend* Nope. For every person who saves money by going to Durban or Cartagena, a hundred more are paying double or triple what it would cost to go to a global hub city. In terms of the sheer practicality, it might actually be less expensive to have an AFRALO general assembly in Paris than in the region (ditto for LACRALO and Miami) – but that's the fault of the travel industry, not ICANN.

*Allow hosts to show off their Internet savvy*: I'd say that pool is pretty well exhausted. ICANN now struggles just to find hosts willing to bear the costs of the Gala. Nobody needs ICANN anymore for publicity; indeed, given the noise in WCIT and elsewhere, it seems that ICANN may be actively shunned by some of the very places where it *should* be for the purposes listed above (Moscow, for instance). Anyway... this is just food for thought as we determine a response.