Venue Accessibility
Hello everyone, We've now found out that the hotels used for the Delhi ICANN meeting are outlandishy expensive: http://del.icann.org/hotels (BTW, the main conference location is IIRC the Taj Palace. Where is ALAC being put?) This has raised a question that has been bothering me for a while... It's one thing for ICANN to claim to want public participation; but is its process really accessible when locations are chosen that are so expensive? When was the last time that "cost to attend" was a factor when choosing an ICANN meeting venue? The Delhi venue may be inexpensive to those who live within India, but seemingly prohibitive to anyone else who's neither subsidized nor on an expense account. Even as a regional venue, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive. I ask, in part, because of the Summit and the need to have a venue (or perhaps ongoing ones) to which we can bring many people together for as little cost as possible. It would serve ICANN's financial interests -- not to mention those of attendees -- if at least one meeting per year was scheduled at a location that had a) a major air hub b) somewhat reasonable hotel rates (ie, not $450/night!) c) fairly flexible entry policies for attendees (preferably visa-free from many countries) (Thankfully -- by coincidence of timing -- Paris seems close to meeting those criteria. Arguably, LA was inexpensive and a major hub -- but as a last-minute venue, advance planning for it was difficult, as was getting visas for some.) As At-Large is the body charged with promoting public participation in ICANN, perhaps this (financial accessibility of meetings) is an issue of interest to us. Well, if it's not an issue to _us_, it certainly won't be an issue to gold-card constituency reps, or those who go at ICANN's expense to every meeting no matter how costly. In the case of the Summit, there is also a matter of keeping costs down for ICANN. I would hope that in moving forward -- if there is eventual wisdom seen in having the Summit as a biennial event -- that the target city be chosen for its accessibility to travellers. We owe it to those who are not completely subsidized -- as well as to potential outside Summit sponsors -- to deliberately choose financially accessible venues for these events. However, I don' t want to limit this as a Summit issue since the matter of accessibility should not only be an occasional concern. What does anyone else here think? Is this an At-Large issue? I'm rather surprised that it hasn't been raised before; perhaps one reason is because ALAC itself is always shielded from the financial inaccessibility of meetings. However, the ALSs and public that it supposedly leads and represents, on the whole, have no such luxury. - Evan (And, yes, I'm aware of teleconferencing and other mass participation mechanisms. But you all know that some of the real power brokering and alliance-building doesn't happen at formal meetings. While podcasts and such are important tools, they're no substitute for face-to-face.)
Evan, My experience as a previous ICANN meeting host is that the vast majority of attendees have their trip paid for by their company, university, etc. They typically ask for the hotel "where the Board is staying", no matter the price. Others (ALAC and sponsored participants from less favoured countries) travel on ICANN budget. I can only remember a few individuals attending the Luxembourg meeting, and in most cases it was for a single day. I think it is unrealistic to expect an individual to cash out 3 or 4000 dollars for a full week of meetings, if his only interest in the ICANN process is a to worry about his 12 dollars a year domain name. This is exactly why ALAC is needed. Patrick Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
We've now found out that the hotels used for the Delhi ICANN meeting are outlandishy expensive: http://del.icann.org/hotels
It's one thing for ICANN to claim to want public participation; but is its process really accessible when locations are chosen that are so expensive? When was the last time that "cost to attend" was a factor when choosing an ICANN meeting venue? The Delhi venue may be inexpensive to those who live within India, but seemingly prohibitive to anyone else who's neither subsidized nor on an expense account. Even as a regional venue, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive
-- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog at http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Jabber me at patrick@vande-walle.eu
Hello Patrick,
My experience as a previous ICANN meeting host is that the vast majority of attendees have their trip paid for by their company, university, etc. They typically ask for the hotel "where the Board is staying", no matter the price. This has been my (less experienced) observation as well. Commercial interests such as registries and IP lawyers, along with governments, will spend whatever is necessary to be as close to the power as possible.
I think it is unrealistic to expect an individual to cash out 3 or 4000 dollars for a full week of meetings, if his only interest in the ICANN process is a to worry about his 12 dollars a year domain name. This is exactly why ALAC is needed.
I agree. (In the case of Delhi, it looks like the cost will be more like $6000). I am hoping that, if less expensive venues are chosen, the cost goes closer to $2K and thus becomes within the means of at least some regional ALSs. Reducing the cost also makes third-party sponsorship easier; the same fellowship funds can support more people if the venue is cheaper. And I am also thinking of the summit, and the need to do this in a financially responsible way. My attention has been drawn to a document that was done some time ago that echoes my sentiments (along with other recommendations): http://icannwiki.org/How_to_Improve_ICANN_Meetings Perhaps ALAC ought to consider being more assertive about making ICANN activites more accessible -- not just financially, but in all the ways described in this document. I'm told that Wendy was one of the architects of that document -- useful to know should ALAC want to take the issue of accessibility to the Board. - Evan
On 20 Dec 2007, at 15:21, Evan Leibovitch wrote: <snipped>
I am hoping that, if less expensive venues are chosen, the cost goes closer to $2K and thus becomes within the means of at least some regional ALSs. Reducing the cost also makes third-party sponsorship
Just so you all know, the APRALO ALS community will be having its General Assembly in New Delhi, and one rep from each ALS is being invited to attend with travel support provided from the At-Large travel budget. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hi Nick,
Just so you all know, the APRALO ALS community will be having its General Assembly in New Delhi, and one rep from each ALS is being invited to attend with travel support provided from the At-Large travel budget.
Understood; this is like how the NA and LAC ALSs were invited to San Juan. I also assumed that, Summit or not, EURALO will be meeting in Paris. In other words, the costs of handling these trips affect ICANN's own finances; isn't that another reason to choose venues based on accessibility? I haven't travelled as much as some of you, but I seem to recall Hong Kong having significantly less expensive (but decent) hotels -- and it certainly has an airline hub. And I've stayed in four-star accommodation in Kuala Lumpur and Hanoi that were a fraction of the prices quoted for any of the Delhi ones. Certainly other well-travelled folks here will have other ideas; indeed the travel industry surely maintains stats on the cheapest cities in each region in which to hold events. My point is simply that even within regions, there are some places that are less expensive than others. One can be global without being needlessly extravagant in travel expense. - Evan
Having been part of the Meeting Committee, I think I can add a further bit of information. ICANN relies on sponsor organizations to organize meetings: we issue a call for proposals, related to a geographic area and a time frame, and we evaluate the responses, taking into account various elements, including the cost. The organization of the planned 2007 Asia Pacific meeting has been particularly troublesome, due to unavailability of suitable proposals. For this reason, it had to be cancelled, and an alternative venue has been established in Los Angeles, while the calendar has been modified to allow AP not to miss the turn. While I do agree that there are other locations in Asia where lodging could have been less expensive, the fact is that we had to choose among the (very few) proposals on the table. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2007 18:14 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility
Hi Nick,
Just so you all know, the APRALO ALS community will be having its General Assembly in New Delhi, and one rep from each ALS is being invited to attend with travel support provided from the At-Large travel budget.
Understood; this is like how the NA and LAC ALSs were invited to San Juan. I also assumed that, Summit or not, EURALO will be meeting in Paris.
In other words, the costs of handling these trips affect ICANN's own finances; isn't that another reason to choose venues based on accessibility?
I haven't travelled as much as some of you, but I seem to recall Hong Kong having significantly less expensive (but decent) hotels -- and it certainly has an airline hub. And I've stayed in four-star accommodation in Kuala Lumpur and Hanoi that were a fraction of the prices quoted for any of the Delhi ones. Certainly other well-travelled folks here will have other ideas; indeed the travel industry surely maintains stats on the cheapest cities in each region in which to hold events.
My point is simply that even within regions, there are some places that are less expensive than others. One can be global without being needlessly extravagant in travel expense.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Hello Roberto,
Having been part of the Meeting Committee, I think I can add a further bit of information. ICANN relies on sponsor organizations to organize meetings: we issue a call for proposals, related to a geographic area and a time frame, and we evaluate the responses, taking into account various elements, including the cost. The organization of the planned 2007 Asia Pacific meeting has been particularly troublesome, due to unavailability of suitable proposals. For this reason, it had to be cancelled, and an alternative venue has been established in Los Angeles, while the calendar has been modified to allow AP not to miss the turn. While I do agree that there are other locations in Asia where lodging could have been less expensive, the fact is that we had to choose among the (very few) proposals on the table
Thanks for this critical point of view, Roberto. Obviously the approach of always depending on local sponsors is harming ICANN's ability to provide accessible meetings. When I read earlier Kieran's message I had considered a response suggesting that the logistical problems being realized (such as a wedding across the street) were due to the lateness in booking everything. It's normal when creating conferences to have hotel blocks nailed down at least a year before the event takes place. Not only should Delhi hotels all by contracted now, so should those for Paris; it's even leaving things late to have the African meeting not done by now, and we don't even have a city determined yet! As I suspected, the reason is not the tardiness of staff but the lack of useful direction given by ICANN regarding venues and the dependence upon (increasingly rare, it seems) support from local partners. Maintaining a policy of "we will only go where we can find local sponsors" has led to a process that is needlessly expensive, leads to horribly last-minute preparations, and as a result the events are severely reduced in accessibility. It adds substantial extra cost to ICANN for staff and subsidized travel, and makes attendance extremely difficult for any except the expense-account set and locals within commute distance to the venue city. I would like to advance to ALAC address this issue with the Board. It should maintain a goal of being in every region, however the reliance on local sponsors is HURTING, measurably, the greater ICANN community. As the constituency that speaks for public participation, I believe that ALAC needs to assert that changes are required. Here are my specific additions/changes to meeting policy: 1) Searches for local sponsors will take place immediately upon the determination of dates and region (nominally to take place at least two years in advance) 2) If regional sponsors request venues that would be significantly more expensive to attend than others in the same country, the Meeting Committee will work to negotiate a venue with the sponsors that is mutually acceptable. 3) If a suitable local-sponsored venue within a target region is not found within 18 months of the event date, the Meeting Committee (with staff assistance) will select a venue within the target region, based on availability and accessibility. This selection must be finalized within 15 months of the event date. If the Meeting Committee cannot determine a venue in the region, the staff will choose one within the following month. 4) At least one meeting each year must have its location planned to maximize accessibility and minimize cost to attend. This is not just a matter of accessibility (though that is obviously important to me). This is a matter of giving ICANN staff enough room to breathe to make arrangements that are planned well in advance, reducing costs and last-minute headaches while giving potential attendees the ability to plan their participation and book flights well in advance when they're at their least expensive. It's common sense logistics and fiscal responsibility while maintaining regional diversity. (How is regional diversity served by falling back on L.A. because original plans fell through too late to choose reasonable alternates?) I fully understand the benefit of local sponsors, but ICANN needs to plan (at least some of) its meetings so to encourage maximum in-person participation -- there isn't a communications technology out there that beats the ability to look someone in the eye. In the absence of local sponsors, travel professionals can provide the necessary ground-level help -- and their cost will be more than offset by the savings realized in using less expensive venues. If ICANN takes public participation seriously, it must consider the issue of accessibility to its meetings as just one of many obstacles that now exists. Arguably, ICANN's lack of accessibility may even be one of the reasons it's having a harder time finding local sponsors... - Evan
Hi, Evan. At 11:09 24.12.2007 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Here are my specific additions/changes to meeting policy: [cut]
having served on the ICANN Meetings Committee, I can tell you that there is not a single argument in the recent discussions that has not been taken into consideration by me, by other members of the Committee, and recently, by Susan Crawford. You might understand that while ICANN tries its best, it can not always have all ideal features, and sometimes there are certain problems that both ICANN and the community have to deal with. I could go one by one through your suggestions, but we have gone through them over and over, and there will always be bugs and features around the meetings. It is not easy to try to accomodate 3 times a year a huge meeting, which has to take place on a different continent every time. If you go through the meetings since 2004, when I was charing the committee, every time we woudl choose a venue, there would be pro and against Every time. And whether we talk about hotel prices, distance from the airport, stop overs, weather conditions, etc. - there will always be issues. The good thing is that no one but the directors and staff is forced to go to each and every meeting. For some of them, which are not convenient, people may just participate remotely - web casts, wiki, etc. In 2004 not all of that was available, but today it is here. I missed a couple of meetings in person, but thanks to the remote participation, I didn't really miss them. So, my advise is to think of all aspects, not only some, when discussing this issue. As for the last paragraph of your
If ICANN takes public participation seriously, it must consider the issue of accessibility to its meetings as just one of many obstacles that now exists. Arguably, ICANN's lack of accessibility may even be one of the reasons it's having a harder time finding local sponsors...
It is exactly because ICANN takes participation seriously, that now it has interpretation in several languages, web casts, audio-casts, instant messaging, wikis, etc., etc. To say that this is not enough is just not fair. It is what you could get with the current technologies, and the techincal staff are doing whatever possible to make sure more people have access to more sessions. The important part of the meeting is the substance, not the form. Best, Veni
Hello Veni.
having served on the ICANN Meetings Committee, I can tell you that there is not a single argument in the recent discussions that has not been taken into consideration by me, by other members of the Committee, and recently, by Susan Crawford. I have no doubt of this; ICANN volunteers are generally well-intentioned and intelligent. However I submit that they are constrained by policies that make their tasks slow and difficult. My policy suggestions are a direct attempt to change that.
I could go one by one through your suggestions, but we have gone through them over and over, and there will always be bugs and features around the meetings. I am not talking about bugs. I am talking about systemic obstacles to timely selections and venue accessibility. If these are not primary issues driving meeting selection than any process behind it will produce flawed results.
It is not easy to try to accomodate 3 times a year a huge meeting, which has to take place on a different continent every time. It is not easy but it is not impossible either. ICANN is hardly the first organization in this situation and it has had many years to collect experience in this field. Expereience should have taught that you need to book hotels a year in advance, that is about as basic as it gets. Continuing a process that leads to last-minute operations, time after time after time, (the city for Africa still hasn't even been selected!) is inexcusable.
This is not a series of individual bugs. This is a fundamentally flawed process, whose massive inefficiency is only saved by ICANN's deep pockets. If staff and directors had to pay for meeting expenses out of their own pockets, this would be addressed quickly.
If you go through the meetings since 2004, when I was charing the committee, every time we woudl choose a venue, there would be pro and against Every time. Well, of course. But that's irrelevant. The point is that there need to be deadlines set and decisions made in adequate time -- even if (especially if!) local hosts are not found.
The good thing is that no one but the directors and staff is forced to go to each and every meeting. For some of them, which are not convenient, people may just participate remotely - web casts, wiki, etc. In 2004 not all of that was available, but today it is here. I missed a couple of meetings in person, but thanks to the remote participation, I didn't really miss them.
Having meetings that can be attended in person only by the expense-account set leads to power dynamics that work horribly against the end-user public. The ICANN of today is a cacophony of competing self-interest groups, each of which is attempting to influence direction -- and almost none of which have the interest of the general public in mind. Arguably, the very makeup of today's ICANN has shut out direct public votes from its board, due to the successful work of interest groups that seek to minimize the public voice. As part of At-Large we are trying to reverse this trend, not to accelerate it. Innovation in teleconferencing is a potential step forward. But holding that it is an excuse to maintain the inaccessibility of direct meeting participation, or the miserable process for choosing venues, is not acceptable. - Evan
(Catching up on my mail from New Zealand, where the food and scenery are first rate, but the quality of the net connections are as usual inversely proportional to the quality of the scenery.) I get a large sense of deja vu listening to the meeting venue arguments, because they are very similar to the ones the IETF deals with. The IETF also has about three meetings a year, about the same size as the ICANN meetings, with similar issues of geographical diversity, sponsorship, and cost, along with a need to have better net connections than most venues normally provide. The IETF cares about affordability because they charge meeting fees that must cover costs, and there are still a fair number of attendees who pay their own way. It's not identical, but it's close. Their approach is much like what Evan suggests. They pick the general locations three years out, and pick the exact venues more than a year out. They try to get sponsors and usually do, but they don't hold up the logistics waiting for sponsors. They recently made a deal with a large hotel chain (Hilton, I think) so they use that chain's hotels when there's a suitable one in the desired location. It also means that they try to return to places that have worked well, rather than having each meeting be a leap into the unknown. None of this is secret, it's reported extensively on their lists. Look at what they did recently when the hotel in Vancouver, the same one ICANN used a couple of years ago, reneged on their pledge not to schedule construction during the meeting. R's, John
Evan, I didn't hear anything so far, which I haven't heard before, and on top of that, it comes with the suggestion "since this is so good, it should be implemented". May be, before putting all these on the table, so to speak, you could have contacted the Meetings Committee, or ask them why they have not so far implemented so many and so good things? Perhaps there is a good reason, and perhaps it is not as easy, as it sounds, to make the changes we all have been suggesting during the last years. And I hope you will be able to understand that if something happens / does not happen the way you think it should be, there is also a very good reason behind it, and this reason obviously has priority upon your expectations. All the other thoughts are for another mailing list, not this one, where - as far as I can see - people are trying to have constructive discussions. Let's not turn this list into the "internet governance" one. veni
Veni, But if Evan isn't on the Meetings Committee, would he be able to take part in any discussion on their list? I'm thinking not, which is maybe why he sent his suggestions to this list. Not sure, though. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Veni Markovski Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:21 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility Evan, I didn't hear anything so far, which I haven't heard before, and on top of that, it comes with the suggestion "since this is so good, it should be implemented". May be, before putting all these on the table, so to speak, you could have contacted the Meetings Committee, or ask them why they have not so far implemented so many and so good things? Perhaps there is a good reason, and perhaps it is not as easy, as it sounds, to make the changes we all have been suggesting during the last years. And I hope you will be able to understand that if something happens / does not happen the way you think it should be, there is also a very good reason behind it, and this reason obviously has priority upon your expectations. All the other thoughts are for another mailing list, not this one, where - as far as I can see - people are trying to have constructive discussions. Let's not turn this list into the "internet governance" one. veni _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
He certainly could have contacted them - not necessarily on a mailing list. I don't remember not receiving mails on different occasions by whoever has decided to write. Plus, even from the At-Large worldwide point of view, the way to deal with such ideas, is to start a constructive discussion, not just to follow the easiest path by claiming you have all the answers, without actually thinking what the questions confronting the Meetings Committee are. And the questions are tough, believe me. veni On Dec 27, 2007 4:35 PM, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Veni,
But if Evan isn't on the Meetings Committee, would he be able to take part in any discussion on their list? I'm thinking not, which is maybe why he sent his suggestions to this list. Not sure, though.
Darlene
Hello Veni,
I didn't hear anything so far, which I haven't heard before, and on top of that, it comes with the suggestion "since this is so good, it should be implemented". May be, before putting all these on the table, so to speak, you could have contacted the Meetings Committee, or ask them why they have not so far implemented so many and so good things?
I asked the question on this (the public at-large list) because I wanted to elicit the point of view of other members of this constituency before moving forward. I wanted to know, from a specifically public-at-large POV, whether my suggestions have merit or whether objections exist. As it represents the public interest, at-large may (and, I would suggest, should) have a specific interest in this matter that is perhaps not shared (and may be indeed actively fought) by other ICANN constituencies.
Perhaps there is a good reason, and perhaps it is not as easy, as it sounds, to make the changes we all have been suggesting during the last years. Perhaps. But until that reason becomes evident, the question will still be asked.
It is insufficient answer to my suggestions to simply state that they were made before and churned through a long and tedious process. If there is a valid objection I very much want to hear it. That is why I have made these comments to the At-Large lists.
And I hope you will be able to understand that if something happens / does not happen the way you think it should be, there is also a very good reason behind it, and this reason obviously has priority upon your expectations. I've been through such processes before. Sometimes the "very good reason" is nothing more than inertia, fear of change, and/or the conclusion that "doing nothing" is an expedient solution. If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list.
Veni, if you were privvy to those objections, it would greatly assist this issue if you could clarify them. The simple awareness that there is "a reason", out there, somewhere, to go against the common sense approaches of other big orgs that do conferences, is not a suitable response. I am indeed very interested in a _constructive_ discussion that may result in a recommendation by ALAC and/or RALOs and/or ALSs within ICANN. This is exactly why I would like to know the objections to what I have proposed (since as you have mentioned they have already been raised). If my questions have already been asked and answered, and you know what the answers are, PLEASE reveal them. - Evan
On Dec 27, 2007 5:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I've been through such processes before. Sometimes the "very good reason" is nothing more than inertia, fear of change, and/or the conclusion that "doing nothing" is an expedient solution. If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list.
I guess the best way is to contact the current Meetings Committee - they would give you today's reasons. I can give you yesterday's. They have been shared publicly during the public board meetings. I can't give answers to all your questions; I just say that since you are not the first one to raise them, they have been addressed by at least three of the last Meetings Committee chairpersons, and they have not been easy to solve. That includes ideas for example to meet at locations, which are easily accessible, but then we are facing the problem of people from different countries not being able to travel in order to participate, or to cover their expenses. Or the fact that these are conferences, which are not exactly like the IETF, therefore comparing the two is like oranges and apples (e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA, and if you know how difficult it is to set up an ICANN meeting in North America, thinking about the many people, who will need to go through interviews worldwide to get a visa for Canada/US... and you could continue with such details). The fact that often the meeting will have to take place in a remote location, because the prices in the city are much higher (e.g. Rome, Mar del Plata, etc.), etc., etc. When ICANN goes to distant countries, it also gives the people from the region the chance to participate - e.g. when they had a meeting in Bucharest, we had Bulgarians going by car, etc. Without going further into details - and without involving into a discussion, I repeat again - the best way to approach this problem, is to address the Meetings Committee; or may be even go into the ICANN archives, and see why the meetings take place where they take place, and why it is not easy to have the countries assigned two years in advance. best, Veni
Dear all As Veni, I ve been part of Meetings Committee, and I am sure they have tried the best they can to balance all interest. What I see is a different perspectives coming from people from different regions: people from the developed countries tend to see things from their own perspectives, forgetting the other side of the world has several problems they never have imagine could exist. When venue happens to be in developing world, those living in developed ones will face same difficulty (not all) people from developing normally needs to face to attend any meeting. Thats the way the world works. Meetings committee must deal with all different aspects to set a meeting to allow, in a balanced way during a period, the maximum attendance from people around the world. It is not an ease task, believe me. As I see things we should reduce our complains and try to commit ourselves to send formal proposes considering all different interests. I dont know if we can suggest something better, but instead to complain, worth to try. Volunteer work also means responsibilities and commitment. Hence, I am second Venis suggestion to addressing consistent proposals to Meeting Committee formally, and debate with them ours and theirs point of view and solutions for each issue. May be working together and reducing complains we will have better results. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." _____ De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Veni Markovski Enviada em: quinta-feira, 27 de dezembro de 2007 20:53 Para: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility On Dec 27, 2007 5:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: I've been through such processes before. Sometimes the "very good reason" is nothing more than inertia, fear of change, and/or the conclusion that "doing nothing" is an expedient solution. If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list. I guess the best way is to contact the current Meetings Committee - they would give you today's reasons. I can give you yesterday's. They have been shared publicly during the public board meetings. I can't give answers to all your questions; I just say that since you are not the first one to raise them, they have been addressed by at least three of the last Meetings Committee chairpersons, and they have not been easy to solve. That includes ideas for example to meet at locations, which are easily accessible, but then we are facing the problem of people from different countries not being able to travel in order to participate, or to cover their expenses. Or the fact that these are conferences, which are not exactly like the IETF, therefore comparing the two is like oranges and apples ( e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA, and if you know how difficult it is to set up an ICANN meeting in North America, thinking about the many people, who will need to go through interviews worldwide to get a visa for Canada/US... and you could continue with such details). The fact that often the meeting will have to take place in a remote location, because the prices in the city are much higher ( e.g. Rome, Mar del Plata, etc.), etc., etc. When ICANN goes to distant countries, it also gives the people from the region the chance to participate - e.g. when they had a meeting in Bucharest, we had Bulgarians going by car, etc. Without going further into details - and without involving into a discussion, I repeat again - the best way to approach this problem, is to address the Meetings Committee; or may be even go into the ICANN archives, and see why the meetings take place where they take place, and why it is not easy to have the countries assigned two years in advance. best, Veni
While we're on the subject of meetings, let's not forget that cost is not the only constraint on in person participation. For many, time is the central constraining factor. Each ICANN meeting lasts 5-7 days. Add a day on each side for travel, and you're asking people to devote an unreasonable amount of time each year to participate in ICANN on an equal basis with, as Evan called them, the expense account set. -- Bret
This is true. But when everyone of us was appointed to their possitions we already new the time we had to devote to ICANN so I don`t see why we should complaint now José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Bret Fausett To: At-Large Worldwide Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] RES: Venue Accessibility While we're on the subject of meetings, let's not forget that cost is not the only constraint on in person participation. For many, time is the central constraining factor. Each ICANN meeting lasts 5-7 days. Add a day on each side for travel, and you're asking people to devote an unreasonable amount of time each year to participate in ICANN on an equal basis with, as Evan called them, the expense account set. -- Bret _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
On 2007-12-30 11:01:14 -0400, Josè Ovidio Salgueiro A. wrote:
This is true. But when everyone of us was appointed to their possitions we already new the time we had to devote to ICANN so I don`t see why we should complaint now
Because this isn't just about your precious time, but about the possibility to bring a broader public into these meetings. The Internet at large, you know... Sure, ICANN staff will ultimately take care of travel arrangements for ALAC members and other appointees, modulo the usual little signals such as not being put into the same hotel as the board members. But what do you do about others who are members of this community, might have valuable insights to contribute, and for sure won't cough up $500 per night in terms of hotel expenses -- either out of their own pocket, or out of an expense account? -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Dear all, I'm rather surprised, in the e-mail below and others, to view Evan's points as "complaints". Then it is suggested that a formal proposal be put forward. Perhaps it was the tone of Evan's e-mail but, personally, I didn't see it as complaining but as putting suggestions forward in order to improve things. I doubt that any of us have time to put forward a formal "proposal" but I thought that is what Evan did in his e-mail and to call it complaining certainly does obstruct constructive discussion on this topic. I can only imagine how hideously complicated this process must be but surely there is *some* room for improvement? D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini UOL Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:20 PM To: 'Veni Markovski'; 'Evan Leibovitch' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] RES: Venue Accessibility Dear all As Veni, I 've been part of Meetings Committee, and I am sure they have tried the best they can to balance all interest. What I see is a different perspectives coming from people from different regions: people from the developed countries tend to see things from their own perspectives, forgetting the other side of the world has several problems they never have imagine could exist. When venue happens to be in developing world, those living in developed ones will face same difficulty (not all) people from developing normally needs to face to attend any meeting. That's the way the world works. Meetings committee must deal with all different aspects to set a meeting to allow, in a balanced way during a period, the maximum attendance from people around the world. It is not an ease task, believe me. As I see things we should reduce our complains and try to commit ourselves to send formal proposes considering all different interests. I don't know if we can suggest something better, but instead to complain, worth to try. Volunteer work also means responsibilities and commitment. Hence, I am second Veni's suggestion to addressing consistent proposals to Meeting Committee formally, and debate with them ours and theirs point of view and solutions for each issue. May be working together and reducing complains we will have better results. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." ________________________________ De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Veni Markovski Enviada em: quinta-feira, 27 de dezembro de 2007 20:53 Para: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility On Dec 27, 2007 5:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: I've been through such processes before. Sometimes the "very good reason" is nothing more than inertia, fear of change, and/or the conclusion that "doing nothing" is an expedient solution. If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list. I guess the best way is to contact the current Meetings Committee - they would give you today's reasons. I can give you yesterday's. They have been shared publicly during the public board meetings. I can't give answers to all your questions; I just say that since you are not the first one to raise them, they have been addressed by at least three of the last Meetings Committee chairpersons, and they have not been easy to solve. That includes ideas for example to meet at locations, which are easily accessible, but then we are facing the problem of people from different countries not being able to travel in order to participate, or to cover their expenses. Or the fact that these are conferences, which are not exactly like the IETF, therefore comparing the two is like oranges and apples ( e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA, and if you know how difficult it is to set up an ICANN meeting in North America, thinking about the many people, who will need to go through interviews worldwide to get a visa for Canada/US... and you could continue with such details). The fact that often the meeting will have to take place in a remote location, because the prices in the city are much higher ( e.g. Rome, Mar del Plata, etc.), etc., etc. When ICANN goes to distant countries, it also gives the people from the region the chance to participate - e.g. when they had a meeting in Bucharest, we had Bulgarians going by car, etc. Without going further into details - and without involving into a discussion, I repeat again - the best way to approach this problem, is to address the Meetings Committee; or may be even go into the ICANN archives, and see why the meetings take place where they take place, and why it is not easy to have the countries assigned two years in advance. best, Veni
Veni Markovski wrote:
That includes ideas for example to meet at locations, which are easily accessible, but then we are facing the problem of people from different countries not being able to travel in order to participate, or to cover their expenses. By definition, such a location is not accessible. :-)
Or the fact that these are conferences, which are not exactly like the IETF, therefore comparing the two is like oranges and apples There is value in learning from the experiences of others. While every instance has its unique characteristics there are still lessons to be learned.
( e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA, BTW, I am not for a moment arguing that North America is more accessible than other areas. Indeed, visa problems are a substantial obstruction to accessibility that I would never discount. I hope that I did not convey any inference that any region was necessarily more accessible than any other -- there are many factors in what I would consider "accessibility" of a location.
The fact that often the meeting will have to take place in a remote location, because the prices in the city are much higher ( e.g. Rome, Mar del Plata, etc.), etc., etc. When ICANN goes to distant countries, it also gives the people from the region the chance to participate - e.g. when they had a meeting in Bucharest, we had Bulgarians going by car, etc. You may be misinterpreting me. I am not for a moment arguing against having meetings in cities such as Bucharest. Indeed, I would imagine that many cities in Eastern Europe could be very accessible by global comparison. I am simply arguing that planning policy must inevitably force city decisions to be made at least a year in advance. If they cannot be made by consensus then there must be a process that otherwise accomplishes the task in time.
I am also asking that financial and visa accessibility be made a priority concern in at least one meeting a year -- not constraining all of them. What I would like to do is to find out of ALAC believes this is a worthy issue, given that IMO the public is being served worse by the status quo than other constituencies. If ALAC does not feel this is worthy of its time I may consider other options to bring this forward.
Without going further into details - and without involving into a discussion, I repeat again - the best way to approach this problem, is to address the Meetings Committee; or may be even go into the ICANN archives, and see why the meetings take place where they take place, and why it is not easy to have the countries assigned two years in advance. I never said it would be easy. ;-) I just said that it needs to be done, easy or not.
- Evan
( e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA,
Hmmn. People who are even modestly familiar with the IETF's meeting planning know that they're quite aware of US visa problems. That's why they're likely to be meeting in Canada a lot more than they used to. Sure, the IETF and ICANN are not identical, but their meeting issues are more similar than different. Having been to two years' worth of ICANN meetings on ICANN's dime, I can confirm that there's clearly a vast amount of extra expense due to so many last minute arrangements. R's, John PS:
What I would like to do is to find out of ALAC believes this is a worthy issue, given that IMO the public is being served worse by the status quo than other constituencies.
Yes, definitely. If I ever go to another ICANN meeting, I'll be paying my own way, so cost matters.
Even though I may not share ALL the points Evan made, I quite agree that this issue is worth for ALAC to consider and discuss with ourselves, as well as with other parts of ICANN. APRALO discussed on our list that having the Asia Pacific ICANN meeting in the middle of Chinese New Year time would pose significant participation problem especially in Eastern Asia where many are affected by Chinese calender system (not only ethnic Chinese people) and we agreed that this concern should be conveyed to the ICANN people. So, there are several factors for our meeting to be improved. I also like to remind that the meeting commitee also tried to listen to ICANN community in terms of how we organize the meetings. I don't remember the details and have llittle time to check, but they held a public workshop on ICANN meetings and asked for comments and suggestions, and was open to criticisms as well. I think they are still very open to suggestions, and aware of the criticisms, too. thanks, izumi 2007/12/28, John L <johnl@iecc.com>:
( e.g. IETF is mainly in the northern countries, no problems about getting visas for people to travbel to the USA,
Hmmn. People who are even modestly familiar with the IETF's meeting planning know that they're quite aware of US visa problems. That's why they're likely to be meeting in Canada a lot more than they used to.
Sure, the IETF and ICANN are not identical, but their meeting issues are more similar than different. Having been to two years' worth of ICANN meetings on ICANN's dime, I can confirm that there's clearly a vast amount of extra expense due to so many last minute arrangements.
R's, John
PS:
What I would like to do is to find out of ALAC believes this is a worthy issue, given that IMO the public is being served worse by the status quo than other constituencies.
Yes, definitely. If I ever go to another ICANN meeting, I'll be paying my own way, so cost matters.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Veni Markovski wrote:
If there is indeed a truly good reason for the status quo of last-minute planning chaos that trumps the causes of stability and accessibility and that diminishes the value of my recommendations , I would very much love to hear it. So, I suspect, would others on this list.
I guess the best way is to contact the current Meetings Committee - they would give you today's reasons. I can give you yesterday's.
OK, then please offer yesterday's reasons. Having concrete objections to address -- even old ones -- is better than debating ghosts. Based on the few public reports available such as the one at http://www.domainesinfo.fr/english/085/inside-the-icann-meeting-venue-select... one could gather that ICANN's meeting committee and staff see themselves like the Olympics, sitting back and expecting the cities of the world to compete vigorously to be hosts. This is even though -- unlike the Olympics -- the host appears to have little chance of revenue despite significant expense. Not only does such vigorous competition not exist, but perhaps ICANN should consider that the venues that submit host applications may be most inconvenient for the world to attend. It is telling that in one of the only publicly available documents on this issue, a roadmap produced this past March (http://www.icann.org/meetings/meetings-white-paper-20mar07.html), noted an interest to consider choice of locations to "increase participation, particularly from business and government". In other words, the expense account set -- so much for the public interest or financial accessibility. _This_ is why I am raising this issue at the ALAC level. As ICANN's guardian of the public interest, I believe that it is a legitimate role to assert the needs of At-Large, given that the committee does not seem to be presently interested in meeting venue choices aimed at maximizing participation from those who must come at their own expense.
I can't give answers to all your questions; OK, can you give answers to *any* of them? Even one of them? You were there, after all. If you feel the need to challenge my suggestions, at least offer a taste of the actual objections.
The most basic question is: why is it not possible to lock down hotel bookings one year in advance? By now ICANN has had many years to discover the cultural, political and logistical obstacles that exist. With all this experience, ICANN should be better able than many to take these many factors into account while still being able to plan events sufficiently in advance. We know that no particular venue will be acceptable to everyone, and sometimes, no suitable host candidates will step forward before the deadlines. So there should be a way in place to deal with this in a consistent and well-understood manner.
I just say that since you are not the first one to raise them, they have been addressed by at least three of the last Meetings Committee chairpersons, and they have not been easy to solve. So this is the process? To forever go round in discussions, and never solve the issue, content in the knowledge that since it's been discussed, new suggestions may be ridiculed before they are even put forward?
It appears that, despite all its history and supposed experience, ICANN is no closer to solving this problem than it has been for years. This is neither an excuse against further debate nor a solution in itself; one can only wonder how long businesses would stay afloat if they used the same decision-making process. Nobody said that the solution was easy. However, the difficulty of finding a solution does not allow for its avoidance.
Without going further into details - and without involving into a discussion, I repeat again - the best way to approach this problem, is to address the Meetings Committee; or may be even go into the ICANN archives, and see why the meetings take place where they take place, and why it is not easy to have the countries assigned two years in advance. We are all agreed that the task is difficult. It is reasonable, however, to request why it has not been solved anyway. Not every challenge we have is an easy one. The committee should be held accountable for its inability to act; if it cannot be decisive it should ask direction from the Board.
While we're at it, it should also be reasonable to expect that a member of the public can deduce the rationale for the actions of the Meeting Committee without needing to dig into the bowels of "the ICANN archives". (Indeed, if one does a Google search on 'ICANN "meeting committee"' there is very little to be found, so maybe such public archives simply don't even exist.) Perhaps this is another area in which the issue of accessibility should be raised -- but that is a separate debate. - Evan
As I was expecting, this conversation becomes to look like one on the Internet Governance list, where people, whose opinion is not immediately faced with "Great!!!" are feeling bad. Let me take a couple of examples: At 15:56 28.12.2007 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
but perhaps ICANN should consider that the venues that submit host applications may be most inconvenient for the world to attend.
Define "the world". For me such an opinion could come only from West/North citizen. If you ask somebody from South Africa, Romania, Czech, Tunis, Morroco, Argentina, ... you name it, who could have gone to an ICANN meeting exactly because it took place in their country/region, they might probably have a different opinion. So, ICANN gives opportunity for people from countries, which are not in the West/North part of the world, to participate at its meetings, but now you are saying that this is not right?
_This_ is why I am raising this issue at the ALAC level. As ICANN's guardian of the public interest, I believe that it is a legitimate role to assert the needs of At-Large, given that the committee does not seem to be presently interested in meeting venue choices aimed at maximizing participation from those who must come at their own expense.
So, instead of reaching a conclusion, why not ask yourself the questions, which I've put in the previous paragraph above? For example, ICANN has had in the last four years two meetings in Canada, and two meetings in the US; is that enough for the North American users? I think it is. It is good to also not forget that while it may be expensive for them to go somewhere, in Europe there is competition, and therefore the tickets are cheap; so the meeting in France actually may be visited by people from all over Europe for as low as Euro 50 for airplane ticket. It is not ICANN's responsibility to open the US/Canada skies, so that the local airway companies stop charging so high. As for hotel accomodation, there are always risks, if one has a meeting in high season, or in a city where prices are high. But then, if we go to Mar del Plata in Argentina, people complain about having to travel extra 5 hours by bus or car.
OK, can you give answers to *any* of them? Even one of them? You were
I gave you a general answer, but you are not happy with it. This is the problem, not the lack of responses.
The most basic question is: why is it not possible to lock down hotel bookings one year in advance?
This would have been possible, if we choose to have the meetings every year at the same locations; however dates of meetings have to be coordinated with the calendars of the IETF, the ITU, the different holidays in different countries. Plus, if a country comes today to host a meeting for 2009 or 2010, I am sure that it will be easier to choose a hotel. But it is not that easy. Which country are you from? Why don't you ask your community to put an offer two years in advance?
We know that no particular venue will be acceptable to everyone, and sometimes, no suitable host candidates will step forward before the deadlines. So there should be a way in place to deal with this in a consistent and well-understood manner.
And the way is?
It appears that, despite all its history and supposed experience, ICANN is no closer to solving this problem than it has been for years. This is neither an excuse against further debate nor a solution in itself; one can only wonder how long businesses would stay afloat if they used the same decision-making process.
Evan, if I remember correctly, at some point I asked the public to discuss on the ideas, given by the Meetings Committee, and guess how many comments we received? Check the offer here: http://www.icann.nl/meetings/vancouver/captioning-public-forum-ii-03dec05.ht...
While we're at it, it should also be reasonable to expect that a member of the public can deduce the rationale for the actions of the Meeting Committee without needing to dig into the bowels of "the ICANN archives". (Indeed, if one does a Google search on 'ICANN "meeting committee"' there is very little to be found, so maybe such public archives simply don't even exist.)
Really? Why don't you try again? I see quite a lot references. Hope you are not in a country, where there's some restriction on Google? You can also try the ICANN website, there's a search box. Veni veni
On 28-Dec-07, at 3:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
one could gather that ICANN's meeting committee and staff see themselves like the Olympics, sitting back and expecting the cities of the world to compete vigorously to be hosts. This is even though -- unlike the Olympics -- the host appears to have little chance of revenue despite significant expense. Not only does such vigorous competition not exist, but perhaps ICANN should consider that the venues that submit host applications may be most inconvenient for the world to attend.
I have long had a problem with this model. You've exactly nailed most of the problems with ICANN's current practice of engaging local sponsors. My biggest issue, which you've not completely surfaced, lies with the investment that the local sponsor must make in order to pull the event off. There is something seriously wrong when a predominantly rich, powerful, etc. group of "volunteers" (code word for paid advocates in most cases) require local organizations in third world countries to underwrite the organizing costs of meetings held in their region. I do not know exactly how much of an investment the local sponsor must make, but for most regions we go to, all of this money could be better spent on bettering the local internet. -r
It's not just developing countries that have this problem. I've twice tried to engage U.S.-based organizations to plan and host a meeting. With one organization, a U.S. university, we went through the planning stages, but it was the significant financial outlay, against an uncertain ability to recover costs from sponsors, that precluded a bid. The university was willing to donate free conference space, power, and wifi, but the other obligations were too much. -- Bret On Dec 28, 2007, at 7:56 PM, Ross Rader wrote:
On 28-Dec-07, at 3:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
one could gather that ICANN's meeting committee and staff see themselveslike the Olympics, sitting back and expecting the cities of the world to compete vigorously to be hosts.
I have long had a problem with this model. You've exactly nailed most of the problems with ICANN's current practice of engaging local sponsors. My biggest issue, which you've not completely surfaced, lies with the investment that the local sponsor must make in order to pull the event off. There is something seriously wrong when a predominantly rich, powerful, etc. group of "volunteers" (code word for paid advocates in most cases) require local organizations in third world countries to underwrite the organizing costs of meetings held in their region. I do not know exactly how much of an investment the local sponsor must make, but for most regions we go to, all of this money could be better spent on bettering the local internet.
-r
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Hello Veni.
having served on the ICANN Meetings Committee, I can tell you that there is not a single argument in the recent discussions that has not been taken into consideration by me, by other members of the Committee, and recently, by Susan Crawford. I have no doubt of this; ICANN volunteers are generally well-intentioned and intelligent. However I submit that they are constrained by policies that make their tasks slow and difficult. My policy suggestions are a direct attempt to change that.
I could go one by one through your suggestions, but we have gone through them over and over, and there will always be bugs and features around the meetings. I am not talking about bugs. I am talking about systemic obstacles to timely selections and venue accessibility. If these are not primary issues driving meeting selection than any process behind it will produce flawed results.
It is not easy to try to accomodate 3 times a year a huge meeting, which has to take place on a different continent every time. It is not easy but it is not impossible either. ICANN is hardly the first organization in this situation and it has had many years to collect experience in this field. Expereience should have taught that you need to book hotels a year in advance, that is about as basic as it gets. Continuing a process that leads to last-minute operations, time after time after time, (the city for Africa still hasn't even been selected!) is inexcusable.
This is not a series of individual bugs. This is a fundamentally flawed process, whose massive inefficiency is only saved by ICANN's deep pockets. If staff and directors had to pay for meeting expenses out of their own pockets, this would be addressed quickly.
If you go through the meetings since 2004, when I was charing the committee, every time we woudl choose a venue, there would be pro and against Every time. Well, of course. But that's irrelevant. The point is that there need to be deadlines set and decisions made in adequate time -- even if (especially if!) local hosts are not found.
The good thing is that no one but the directors and staff is forced to go to each and every meeting. For some of them, which are not convenient, people may just participate remotely - web casts, wiki, etc. In 2004 not all of that was available, but today it is here. I missed a couple of meetings in person, but thanks to the remote participation, I didn't really miss them.
Having meetings that can be attended in person only by the expense-account set leads to power dynamics that work horribly against the end-user public. The ICANN of today is a cacophony of competing self-interest groups, each of which is attempting to influence direction -- and almost none of which have the interest of the general public in mind. Arguably, the very makeup of today's ICANN has shut out direct public votes from its board, due to the successful work of interest groups that seek to minimize the public voice. As part of At-Large we are trying to reverse this trend, not to accelerate it. Innovation in teleconferencing is a potential step forward. But holding that it is an excuse to maintain the inaccessibility of direct meeting participation, or the current process for choosing venues, is not acceptable. - Evan
Evan, I think that there are two separate issues here: some suggestions for the medium term, and some criticism about the Delhi situation in the short term. Let me adress them separately, starting from the latter. You say, rightfully so, that at least some of the current problems with Delhi, like the marriage next door, have been created by the lateness in choosing and booking the venue. I agree completely, but I have to disagree on the statement that this is completely ICANN's fault. We have to go back to mid-2007, when both preferred bids for the ICANN 2007 AGM, planned to be in Asia Pacific, went belly-up. This was not at all ICANN's fault, although I don't want to get into details. At this point, the Meeting Committee had to replace the venue with a new one, that could be managed in a short time. LA was chosen. We could discuss forever whether an alternative place could be found, but the thing that drove the decision was mainly the proximity of the venue to ICANN HQ. IMHO, that was the right decision, although not a perfect one. At that point, to keep the calendar as it was, would have meant that AP would have lost its meeting, and would not have had another one before 2009. Moreover, we had the AP-RALO to be officially signed, although it is already functional, and we wanted to do this in an AP meeting, to have more participation from the region. My firm position in the Meeting Committee was that we needed to revise the calendar, having a meeting in AP at the earliest possible date (Feb.2008), soliciting immediately bids from the region. There were different opinions in the committee, and I understand that you might have favoured a different solution, which could have avoided the lateness in booking an AP venue: I am willing to take the full blame for this decision, although I was not alone in thinking that the AP region, and in particular the AP RALO, could not have been penalized so much. Incidentally, I still think it was the right decision, and stand fully behind it. Yes, we are having drawbacks, but IMHO they are manageable, while the failure to have a meeting in AP in years would have been a major issue. All this to say that the LA+Delhi situation cannot be considered a typical example, but rather an exception, where ICANN Staff, under tremendous pressure, have done the best that they could given the circumstances, and I do believe that they are doing an excellent job. To your suggestions, that address the future, I would like to provide the comments below your text.
1) Searches for local sponsors will take place immediately upon the determination of dates and region (nominally to take place at least two years in advance)
I agree that we need to set the calendar earlier, there is complete agreement between Board and Staff. The only concern is the interdependence among different meetings (IETF, RIRs, other international for a, etc.), but I am sure that something can be done on this.
2) If regional sponsors request venues that would be significantly more expensive to attend than others in the same country, the Meeting Committee will work to negotiate a venue with the sponsors that is mutually acceptable.
This is already being done. And the discussion with the sponsors include not only the cost of the venue, but also how easy it is to reach it, if there are enough hotel rooms available, etc. There are several criteria that are analysed, and weighted.
3) If a suitable local-sponsored venue within a target region is not found within 18 months of the event date, the Meeting Committee (with staff assistance) will select a venue within the target region, based on availability and accessibility. This selection must be finalized within 15 months of the event date. If the Meeting Committee cannot determine a venue in the region, the staff will choose one within the following month.
The way ICANN meetings are organized, interconnected with other meetings, and dependent on other different events, to move the date might be virtually impossible. Take as example the last meeting: it was scheduled for the last week in October. Had ICANN chosen not to move the location, but to delay it one month, what do you think would have happened? (Hint: one month later that the last week in October is the last week in November). Just to say that some solutions are easier said than done.
4) At least one meeting each year must have its location planned to maximize accessibility and minimize cost to attend.
There has been, a couple of years ago, I believe, the proposal of having one meeting in a "hub". It was rejected, although there has been the commitment that special care would be given not to have in the same year three locations that would be all costly and/or difficult to access. For 2008, the "hub-like" venue is Paris. Anyway, I personally welcome the debate in ALAC about the meeting. Maybe ALAC could try to come to some consensus on few points, that can be brought to the attention of the Board by the ALAC Liaison. Even things that were rejected in the past, like the "hub", could be reconsidered if the community wishes so. Cheers, Roberto
Hello Roberto, First, thank you for raising back the level of the debate to one that addresses the issues directly.
I think that there are two separate issues here: some suggestions for the medium term, and some criticism about the Delhi situation in the short term.
I agree. It is too late regarding Delhi to do anything but rely on Stacy, Kieren and ICANN staff to make the best of what is possible. I know they're doing their best and have utter faith that it will turn out fine.
We have to go back to mid-2007, when both preferred bids for the ICANN 2007 AGM, planned to be in Asia Pacific, went belly-up. This was not at all ICANN's fault, although I don't want to get into details. I guess that forms part of my concern, that the reliance on local bids are both slowing the process, and leading to venues that may be easy to host but hard to attend. This is a component that is now beyond ICANN's control; I am suggesting that ICANN needs to re-take some of that control.
At this point, the Meeting Committee had to replace the venue with a new one, that could be managed in a short time. LA was chosen. We could discuss forever whether an alternative place could be found, but the thing that drove the decision was mainly the proximity of the venue to ICANN HQ. IMHO, that was the right decision, although not a perfect one.
Agreed. Arguably these days, given visa issues, the US is not a very accessible venue, especially given the last-minute nature of the LA selection. (I look forward to the attempt to have a meeting in Havana. ;-) ) What I would have hoped for -- and would like to advocate -- is to push the calendar back, and to give the committee the breathing room to use arbitrary discretion regarding cities if no suitable bids in the region emerge. That way, if the existing AP bids fall through, the committee could select another city in AP without a host and move appropriately.
My firm position in the Meeting Committee was that we needed to revise the calendar, having a meeting in AP at the earliest possible date (Feb.2008), soliciting immediately bids from the region. There were different opinions in the committee, and I understand that you might have favoured a different solution, which could have avoided the lateness in booking an AP venue: I am willing to take the full blame for this decision, I believe you took the correct position given the situation. I am suggesting that, in the future, that this decision is made six months earlier, so that an alternate in the selected region can be found. That was not possible given the circumstances earlier this year.
As I suggested before, based my own experience of conference planning I would have expected the core Paris venue(s) and the African city to have been finalized by now. Not doing so offers the potential to similar problems such as Delhi's costs and last year's fall-back to LA. If there are no suitable bids from Africa at this time the committee still needs to make a decision very soon. Find a city (Cairo? Nairobi? Capetown? Tunis?) that has a good combination of flight/hotel cost/availability (and maybe some ALSs) and choose it. At least that's what I believe should happen. I know this is getting beyond the original ALAC discussion; my point is that we perhaps should recommend some policies that give the committee more time, and more flexibility to make a city choice when no proper bids exist.
3) If a suitable local-sponsored venue within a target region is not found within 18 months of the event date, the Meeting Committee (with staff assistance) will select a venue within the target region, based on availability and accessibility. This selection must be finalized within 15 months of the event date. If the Meeting Committee cannot determine a venue in the region, the staff will choose one within the following month.
The way ICANN meetings are organized, interconnected with other meetings, and dependent on other different events, to move the date might be virtually impossible. I am not advocating to move the date; rather, I am suggesting that the Committee be given the authority to choose a city in the region arbitrarily if no proper bids exist. Keep the region and the date, change the city.
Once the meeting dates are set they should not be changed. What I am suggesting is that the committee and staff have their own fallback city in each region to use if no proper bids are received. IMO such research should already be starting for the 2009 venues once the African city is chosen. There are many travel-industry resources available that track the relative expenses (and other obstacles) of cities as conference venues.
4) At least one meeting each year must have its location planned to maximize accessibility and minimize cost to attend.
There has been, a couple of years ago, I believe, the proposal of having one meeting in a "hub". It was rejected, although there has been the commitment that special care would be given not to have in the same year three locations that would be all costly and/or difficult to access. For 2008, the "hub-like" venue is Paris.
I agree that Paris is actually a very good hub, especially considering cheap flights from Europe and the access from Africa. Hotels are not the cheapest but they're not $500 like Delhi. :-) I am genuinely curious to know the reasons against a policy of mandating one meeting each year in a "hub". Each region has at least a few "hub" cities.
Anyway, I personally welcome the debate in ALAC about the meeting. Maybe ALAC could try to come to some consensus on few points, that can be brought to the attention of the Board by the ALAC Liaison. Even things that were rejected in the past, like the "hub", could be reconsidered if the community wishes so.
This is a good plan to proceed. Again, thanks so much for your comments. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch ha scritto:
What I would have hoped for -- and would like to advocate -- is to push the calendar back, and to give the committee the breathing room to use arbitrary discretion regarding cities if no suitable bids in the region emerge. That way, if the existing AP bids fall through, the committee could select another city in AP without a host and move appropriately.
FYI, for what I learned from the Board - After the AP bids fell through, and before falling back onto LA, there was an attempt by staff to have ICANN organize the meeting in one major city in AP. Unfortunately, after about a month of scouting and negotiations, there was still no availability of a fit venue, and so it was thought better to do it in LA, which is much easier for a number of reasons. And at that time, given the APRALO situation, I supported the firm request to have the meeting in AP as soon as possible. I've never been in the Meetings Committee (incidentally, the ALAC could ask for its Board Liaison to be added to it) but I think you are making lots of suggestions that seem good and obvious at first sight, but then become more and more difficult as you try to implement them. For example, if you stay with the current model of soliciting bids from local communities, it's hard to ask local groups to plan two or three years in advance. You might move the timeline earlier, but then discover that you get no bids. On the other hand, if you move to a model in which ICANN organizes the meetings, you pose plenty of additional effort on ICANN's side (not just in terms of money - and I agree with Ross that ICANN could put more of it, especially for Southern locations - but in terms of local know-how and practicalities), and you risk wasting possible support and sponsors from local communities because you're not asking for them. Politically, it would put ICANN in an even more difficult situation: today already, rejected bidders and their communities are disillusioned, if not upset; but you can reply that the other bid was factually better on an objective scale. If ICANN will choose the venue indipendently on its own, all sorts of political pressures will start, for choosing country A rather than country B. About the "hub" requirement - I was not involved in the discussion, but I will note that it is true, as you say, that each continent has some hub cities, but it is also true that not all countries include a global hub. Of course it depends on the definition, but, in Europe, only the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany have truly global transportation hubs. Can you really tell to the other 30+ countries in the continent that they will never get a chance to host an ICANN meeting? Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
FYI, for what I learned from the Board - After the AP bids fell through, and before falling back onto LA, there was an attempt by staff to have ICANN organize the meeting in one major city in AP. Unfortunately, after about a month of scouting and negotiations, there was still no availability of a fit venue I don't doubt that, there was so little time to work with.
I've never been in the Meetings Committee (incidentally, the ALAC could ask for its Board Liaison to be added to it) but I think you are making lots of suggestions that seem good and obvious at first sight, but then become more and more difficult as you try to implement them. As I've said from the beginning, the fact that a challenge is difficult does not mean it should not be addressed.
For example, if you stay with the current model of soliciting bids from local communities, it's hard to ask local groups to plan two or three years in advance. You might move the timeline earlier, but then discover that you get no bids. I think it is reasonable to request a city be selected within 18 months; if bids cannot be presented before then it is not ICANN's fault.
On the other hand, if you move to a model in which ICANN organizes the meetings, you pose plenty of additional effort on ICANN's side (not just in terms of money - and I agree with Ross that ICANN could put more of it, especially for Southern locations - but in terms of local know-how and practicalities), and you risk wasting possible support and sponsors from local communities because you're not asking for them. And yet... we had a situation last year in AP and apparently one this year in Africa in which nobody wants it. Given that every choice involves tradeoffs, it is reasonable IMO to sacrifice the sponsorship of local communities in order to bring some badly needed stability to the process. As Ross suggested, it is often an unreasonable burden on local communities, and limiting venues to bid cities often eliminates the most accessible selections.
I have been suggesting a hybrid approach. Invite bids, but do not be afraid to select a city arbitrarily if no bids in a region are available. And do it sufficiently in advance to make the fallback practical.
Politically, it would put ICANN in an even more difficult situation: today already, rejected bidders and their communities are disillusioned, if not upset; but you can reply that the other bid was factually better on an objective scale. If ICANN will choose the venue indipendently on its own, all sorts of political pressures will start, for choosing country A rather than country B.
ICANN thinks too much of its own attraction, then. From my perspective there now seem to be more cases of "nobody in the region wants it" than "we have too many good bids". We were in that situation with AP last year and we appear to be approaching it with Africa '08. How many bids have been received for events in '09? When you invite a bid war you encourage competition, and inevitable losers as well as winners. Perhaps the concept of a queue, ("who is next in line to be the LAC city based on previous expression interest") may help.
About the "hub" requirement - I was not involved in the discussion, but I will note that it is true, as you say, that each continent has some hub cities, but it is also true that not all countries include a global hub. Of course it depends on the definition, but, in Europe, only the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany have truly global transportation hubs. Can you really tell to the other 30+ countries in the continent that they will never get a chance to host an ICANN meeting? Who said a suitable "hub" had to be a "truly global transportation hub"? That is being overly restrictive. To me, any airport hosting a reasonable number of scheduled intercontinental flights would be suitable. Ie, Madrid is a hub by my definition but Barcelona is not. In the current era of airline groups (ie, StarAlliance) even secondary hubs are well served internationally.
In any case, I am personally suggesting that only one meeting per year should be mandated for a hub. And lastly, I believe that the global demand to host ICANN meetings is significantly overstated. Perhaps ICANN should concentrate on putting on the best (and least expensive) conferences, and stop thinking of its meetings as a source of national pride. If ICANN drops the attitude, so will the hosts. - Evan
Delhi will be interesting especially with a huge wedding next door. I've been in Delhi taxis trying to drive through similar festivities and it was exciting and fun but don't try to get anywhere fast and watch out for the elephants that are often a part of the multi-day ceremonies! In fact I wish I could go but wow! those hotel bills!! Hey..maybe furnished apartments are the way to go- includes a driver and Internet, around half of the other places. Don't know how close these places are but... http://india.thepeacocksuites.com/suites/services.html But on the general topic: Personally, I think two face to face meetings a year is plenty. Next, I would remove the burden of the expense from the local host. They can still host but ICANN will pay. Anecdotally from what I remember people saying in NZ etc was that it costs big bucks to put on a conference. I also remember there was a public call for ICANN to buy its own wireless equipment and bring it to the conferences so that the local host wouldn't have to build that net from scratch in terms of equipment. Maybe that has been done by now? Next I would look into outsourcing the logistical planning for conferences, and have a small liaison on the ICANN side to deal with the conference-planning company. Why should ICANN staff have to be out of the office scouting places? Let the conference company deal with that and then a few ICANN people can fly in to see the shortlist. Next I would try to recover some costs. At the very least ICANN could charge for the midweek gala event. Would it disenfranchise people to pay a small amount to register to attend meetings? I don't know but my guess is that it would not. Even the American Library Assn (whose conferences are bloated with loads of venues and meetings) does this better than ICANN, while ICANhas a fraction of ALA's attendees. There are a limited number of hub cities that can host 12,000 library people at one time. We know all the cities years in advance (right now we know until 2014! http://www.ala.org/ala/confservices/upcoming/upcomingconferences.htm ) and hotels more than 6 months in advance. We pay $125 or so if we register "early bird" in January for a June conference. This price goes up the nearer you get to the conference. This covers meeting materials and little else. Everything else is a la cart-- if you want to go to a special lunch or a gala event-- all extra. A big database company covers the shuttle bus system. Other companies sponsor the conference bags and name badges. Coming from years of that, I was very much surprised to see how ICANN did it. There's a better way, I think. Although ideas are one thing, implementation another. "The devil is in the details" comes to mind. Jean (ex NA ALAC, independent NARALO member)
With reference to http://india.thepeacocksuites.com/suites/services.html the locations at Defence Colony and Panchsheel Enclave are the closest to the venue. Regards, R. Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Delhi will be interesting especially with a huge wedding next door. I've been in Delhi taxis trying to drive through similar festivities and it was exciting and fun but don't try to get anywhere fast and watch out for the elephants that are often a part of the multi-day ceremonies! In fact I wish I could go but wow! those hotel bills!! Hey..maybe furnished apartments are the way to go- includes a driver and Internet, around half of the other places. Don't know how close these places are but... http://india.thepeacocksuites.com/suites/services.html
Well, OK, we all seem to agree that the Delhi (non-) schedule was an unusual screwup. But:
I agree that we need to set the calendar earlier, there is complete agreement between Board and Staff. The only concern is the interdependence among different meetings (IETF, RIRs, other international for a, etc.), but I am sure that something can be done on this.
The IETF has set their meeting dates through 2013, listed at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. I expect that most of the other must-not-collide organizations have their schedules set that far out as well. Also see the IETF's clash list, at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html which they use to avoid schedule overlaps. Again, there's a lot of expertise available about arranging meetings, much of which is directly applicable to ICANN's situation. It is not my impression that ICANN staff takes much advantage of it. Any idea when the last time was that anyone at ICANN talked to Ray Pelletier or Marcia Beaulieu, who make IETF meeting arrangements? R's, John
On 2007-12-30 22:24:53 -0500, John L wrote:
The IETF has set their meeting dates through 2013, listed at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. I expect that most of the other must-not-collide organizations have their schedules set that far out as well.
Not all have, but not having big meeting dates and rough locations (country / general area) about a year in advance is generally a really bad idea, and to be avoided. Yes, people fill up their travel calendars many months in advance, and no, ICANN isn't the only contender.
Also see the IETF's clash list, at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html which they use to avoid schedule overlaps.
Again, there's a lot of expertise available about arranging meetings, much of which is directly applicable to ICANN's situation.
Indeed. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Hi All, Happy 2008. I'm wondering if ALAC is going to have an input to the new NTIA call for comments, just as it did last time. The deadline is February 15, I believe. See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/ICANN_JPA_110207.html Siavash ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Siavash: Thank's for the head's up. Comment from ALAC, i think would be strategic . If that can't be done, I might propose that at least NA RALO try to do so. regards Robert On 3-Jan-08, at 9:53 AM, Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Hi All, Happy 2008. I'm wondering if ALAC is going to have an input to the new NTIA call for comments, just as it did last time. The deadline is February 15, I believe. See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2007/ICANN_JPA_110207.html Siavash
There's been a lot of discussion about the timing of ICANN meetings. There's nothing that can be done about Delhi or Paris or the Africa meeting this year, but I think it is worth pointing out that the meeting dates are given out two years in advance. As such, if people could apply the same degree of focus to the future dates as they have on the meeting in four weeks' time it could potentially save a lot of trouble. All the dates can be found on the ICANN meeting page: http://www.icann.org/meetings/ But here they are. If people see major problems or conflicts do flag them as soon as possible. 2009 ICANN Meeting Schedule 1-6 March 2009 Latin America 21-26 June 2009 Asia Pacific 25-30 October 2009 Europe 2010 ICANN Meeting Schedule 7-13 February 2010 Africa 20-25 June 2010 Latin America 17-23 October 2010 North America Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org Cell: +1 310 806 1451 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 783686 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 6:15 AM To: John L Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility On 2007-12-30 22:24:53 -0500, John L wrote:
The IETF has set their meeting dates through 2013, listed at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. I expect that most of the other must-not-collide organizations have their schedules set that far out
as well.
Not all have, but not having big meeting dates and rough locations (country / general area) about a year in advance is generally a really bad idea, and to be avoided. Yes, people fill up their travel calendars many months in advance, and no, ICANN isn't the only contender.
Also see the IETF's clash list, at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/clash_list.html which they use to avoid schedule overlaps.
Again, there's a lot of expertise available about arranging meetings, much
of which is directly applicable to ICANN's situation.
Indeed. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion about the timing of ICANN meetings.
It also would be helpful if ICANN could publish a list of subjects to be covered at the meetings. We're less than a month away from the New Dehli meeting and the schedule says nothing whatsoever about the content of the meeting. http://delhi.icann.org/node/9 Yes, the people who go to all the ICANN meetings will go to this one too, regardless of the subjects covered, but some people may follow certain issues and their attendance will turn on what will happen at the meeting. ICANN doesn't need to post the details, with speakers, room numbers, etc., but I know the Dehli meeting is in the planning stages, I know that certain workshops have been themed and scoped, and these bits of information, however vague they might be now, would be nice to know as soon as possible. -- Bret
It also would be helpful if ICANN could publish a list of subjects to be covered at the meetings. We're less than a month away from the New Dehli meeting and the schedule says nothing whatsoever about the content of the meeting.
I'm in total agreement. I will see what I can do this week. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org Cell: +1 310 806 1451 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 783686 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:47 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN meeting timings On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:35 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion about the timing of ICANN meetings.
It also would be helpful if ICANN could publish a list of subjects to be covered at the meetings. We're less than a month away from the New Dehli meeting and the schedule says nothing whatsoever about the content of the meeting. http://delhi.icann.org/node/9 Yes, the people who go to all the ICANN meetings will go to this one too, regardless of the subjects covered, but some people may follow certain issues and their attendance will turn on what will happen at the meeting. ICANN doesn't need to post the details, with speakers, room numbers, etc., but I know the Dehli meeting is in the planning stages, I know that certain workshops have been themed and scoped, and these bits of information, however vague they might be now, would be nice to know as soon as possible. -- Bret _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Kieren McCarthy wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion about the timing of ICANN meetings.
Specifically, the timing of the PLANNING of the meetings.
There's nothing that can be done about Delhi or Paris or the Africa meeting this year, but I think it is worth pointing out that the meeting dates are given out two years in advance.
Dates and continents, yes, but zero beyond that. Many other conference organizers already have the city and specific venue done that long (two years) in advance.
As such, if people could apply the same degree of focus to the future dates as they have on the meeting in four weeks' time it could potentially save a lot of trouble.
Please elaborate. I fully agree in helping to fix that which can be fixed, rather than obsess with things that are too far gone. (Having said that, not having the hotel chosen for Paris or the city chosen for Africa at this time does seem to indicate that severe problems continue.)
But here they are. If people see major problems or conflicts do flag them as soon as possible.
I don' think conflicts were the identified problem, and most people already know about what scant information exists on the meetings web page. The problems that are identified are not conflicts, so much as a venue selection process that adds far too much uncertainly, politics and elitism to the method of choosing sites.
2009 ICANN Meeting Schedule
1-6 March 2009 Latin America
Arguably the cutoff date for city bids on this should have closed some time ago, allowing the meeting committee to have selected one by now -- or perhaps something else if none of the bids were deemed adequate. In other words, prudent planning would have required that AT LEAST the city for this meeting should have been selected by now. This would give the committee ample time to find a suitable venue. By the way, is there any valid reason why the list of bidding cities is kept secret? It is unfair to deny the public awareness of the candidates, let alone any say in the selection. In other city-bidding processes, the short list is always public. Why does the ICANN meetings page not indicate which cities are under consideration?
21-26 June 2009 Asia Pacific
Bids for this one should be collecting by now, with the cutoff date imminent. Indeed, perhaps it would be a reasonable idea to have the selection process for each meeting discussed publicly and firmly decided at its fourth-previous meeting. For instance, at the Delhi meeting a decision would be made for the venue of four meetings away (June 2009). At Paris the city for Oct 2009 would be decided -- and so on. (Why should the presentations of the various bids not be as public as ALS applications? If they are public they're certainly well-hidden, and not accessible from the meetings page.) Yes, I can hear already the complaints of how difficult this is and how many complex and delicate components are not being considered. If that is the case then perhaps ICANN should reconsider why it has such a needlessly complex, political and elitist process in place to begin with. Perhaps the people who are actually attending the meetings -- especially those who are not subsidized -- should have some say; what a concept! - Evan
Some quick notes/points on this Delhi hotel issue from ICANN's general manager of public participation. Firstly, no, I am not happy about the cost of hotel rooms in Delhi. There are however a long list of mitigating factors: * It is not within ICANN's power to control activity and pricing in one of the most dynamic cities on the planet. It really isn't. Anyone that told you otherwise is lying. * ICANN holds its meetings around the world as a point of principle because of the global nature of its job. It will continue to do so. Delhi is a hotspot of global economic activity at the moment - a big chunk of it thanks to the opportunities that the Internet has provided (global interoperable Internet means that the experience online can be effectively the same across the planet, so it comes down to innovation and labour costs). There is a huge amount of innovation going on at the moment and ICANN is absolutely right to hold a meeting in India for this reason. It is exactly what ICANN should be doing. * Unfortunately a number of events outside ICANN's control have sent hotel room prices up: a series of big conferences have been booked at the same time and there is a huge Indian wedding of some 20,000 people in the hotel opposite (which should, incidentally, be fascinating to see). Add to this the fact that Delhi has massively expanded in recent years (there is *huge* construction of new venues and hotels across the city at the moment to cater for demand), means hotel room prices are high. * ICANN's meetings staff has been working extremely hard on finding affordable hotel rooms - on the ground as well as in calls, emails, faxes and so on. So please bear that in mind if you are going to start throwing around accusations without talking to people. The hotel rooms on the site are the ones we have managed to sort out so far. There should be more and more affordable rooms added soon. You can actually get hotel rooms for a fairly cheap price in Delhi and meetings staff have been to see a large number of them across the city. They provide, I hear, the ability to reminiscence about student travelling days. We didn't feel the community would be over the moon about these, so the search continues. * Now, in recognition of the high cost of hotel rooms, ICANN is undertaking to lift the economic burden elsewhere. Lunch will be provided at the main venue. Hotel rooms prices come with breakfast. We will be laying on buses from the main hotels to the venue. I believe we are also working on having sponsors supply food for evening events. (It is also worth mentioning that the fears about food poisoning have yet to be borne out in reality by any of the ICANN staff. Just avoid the ice cubes.) It should also be mentioned that the cost of most things remain at typical Indian prices - something that anyone interested in Indian goods such as fabrics, will be delighted to hear. * What is also worthy of mention is that ICANN provides travel assistance to certain groups of people - particularly those that are representative of others. I understand that we will also be hosting a meeting on travel assistance policy at Delhi so that would be good for people to attend and participate in. * And lastly - THERE IS A REMOTE PARTICIPATION WEBSITE - which I set up and run every meeting and to which I would be delighted to see all the people that can't attend Delhi appear on, interact with, and provide me useful feedback on so I can improve it for future meetings. The problem at the moment is that without significant numbers of people using it, I have limited sway in making the meeting take what happens on it seriously enough. At the moment it is largely seen as an online resource for information on the meeting rather than a route of real participation and access. If you aren't able to attend Delhi and your complaint is that you won't be able to participate then PLEASE check out the website and use it. It is there precisely for this reason. The response to my plea here will be: "Well the timezone issue makes it impossible." To which I will respond: "So what possible solutions can we come up with?" So can we just miss out these intervening emails and accept that there will *always* been timezone issues and so we should devise ways to improve participation with that in mind. What about: earlier agendas; questions sent prior to a meeting raised during the meeting; possible recap meetings the next day taking in feedback? Other ideas? http://del.icann.org/ Also - what would be incredibly useful is if you all viewed it from the perspective of not attending and emailed me saying what you would really like to see on the site and I will see if I can get it in place in time for the meeting. You want to participate? You want feedback into ICANN's meetings? Well, here it is. Email me: kieren.mccarthy@icann.org. All the best, Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:57 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility Hello everyone, We've now found out that the hotels used for the Delhi ICANN meeting are outlandishy expensive: http://del.icann.org/hotels (BTW, the main conference location is IIRC the Taj Palace. Where is ALAC being put?) This has raised a question that has been bothering me for a while... It's one thing for ICANN to claim to want public participation; but is its process really accessible when locations are chosen that are so expensive? When was the last time that "cost to attend" was a factor when choosing an ICANN meeting venue? The Delhi venue may be inexpensive to those who live within India, but seemingly prohibitive to anyone else who's neither subsidized nor on an expense account. Even as a regional venue, that seems mind-bogglingly expensive. I ask, in part, because of the Summit and the need to have a venue (or perhaps ongoing ones) to which we can bring many people together for as little cost as possible. It would serve ICANN's financial interests -- not to mention those of attendees -- if at least one meeting per year was scheduled at a location that had a) a major air hub b) somewhat reasonable hotel rates (ie, not $450/night!) c) fairly flexible entry policies for attendees (preferably visa-free from many countries) (Thankfully -- by coincidence of timing -- Paris seems close to meeting those criteria. Arguably, LA was inexpensive and a major hub -- but as a last-minute venue, advance planning for it was difficult, as was getting visas for some.) As At-Large is the body charged with promoting public participation in ICANN, perhaps this (financial accessibility of meetings) is an issue of interest to us. Well, if it's not an issue to _us_, it certainly won't be an issue to gold-card constituency reps, or those who go at ICANN's expense to every meeting no matter how costly. In the case of the Summit, there is also a matter of keeping costs down for ICANN. I would hope that in moving forward -- if there is eventual wisdom seen in having the Summit as a biennial event -- that the target city be chosen for its accessibility to travellers. We owe it to those who are not completely subsidized -- as well as to potential outside Summit sponsors -- to deliberately choose financially accessible venues for these events. However, I don' t want to limit this as a Summit issue since the matter of accessibility should not only be an occasional concern. What does anyone else here think? Is this an At-Large issue? I'm rather surprised that it hasn't been raised before; perhaps one reason is because ALAC itself is always shielded from the financial inaccessibility of meetings. However, the ALSs and public that it supposedly leads and represents, on the whole, have no such luxury. - Evan (And, yes, I'm aware of teleconferencing and other mass participation mechanisms. But you all know that some of the real power brokering and alliance-building doesn't happen at formal meetings. While podcasts and such are important tools, they're no substitute for face-to-face.) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
I have several ideas about this that I'd like to discuss with you at some point in the Dehli planning stages, Keiren. You can partially solve the time issue by allowing a conversation to take place serially over a period of days. This would allow for a richer dialogue than just "I post question" and "some Board member responds." I think it would mean getting the agenda up, having an email or wiki based dialogue occurring on issues ahead of the meeting, with the Board/ Staff fully engaged as need, so that the conversation culminates in a statement or a handout at the meeting. Bret On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: The response to my plea here will be: "Well the timezone issue makes it impossible." To which I will respond: "So what possible solutions can we come up with?" So can we just miss out these intervening emails and accept that there will *always* been timezone issues and so we should devise ways to improve participation with that in mind. What about: earlier agendas; questions sent prior to a meeting raised during the meeting; possible recap meetings the next day taking in feedback? Other ideas? -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------
I think you've got something here Brett. So, striking while the iron is hot, I have just written a post and set up a forum on the public participation site to throw around some ideas. You can see the post here: http://public.icann.org/remote-participation It also takes up most of the front page of the participation main site in case people don't think I'm serious about this. The forum is linked in that post and also on the front page and can be found here: http://public.icann.org/forum/remote-participation I would strongly urge everyone on this list to use some of their time and talents thinking positively about how we can improve remote participation and to finding solutions to problems. I will be quite candid about what I think will work and not work, and anything that results from these online coversations, I will do all I can to implement. Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org Cell: +1 310 806 1451 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 783686 -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:01 AM To: Kieren McCarthy Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Venue Accessibility I have several ideas about this that I'd like to discuss with you at some point in the Dehli planning stages, Keiren. You can partially solve the time issue by allowing a conversation to take place serially over a period of days. This would allow for a richer dialogue than just "I post question" and "some Board member responds." I think it would mean getting the agenda up, having an email or wiki based dialogue occurring on issues ahead of the meeting, with the Board/ Staff fully engaged as need, so that the conversation culminates in a statement or a handout at the meeting. Bret On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: The response to my plea here will be: "Well the timezone issue makes it impossible." To which I will respond: "So what possible solutions can we come up with?" So can we just miss out these intervening emails and accept that there will *always* been timezone issues and so we should devise ways to improve participation with that in mind. What about: earlier agendas; questions sent prior to a meeting raised during the meeting; possible recap meetings the next day taking in feedback? Other ideas? -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------
participants (19)
-
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch -
Izumi AIZU -
Jean Armour Polly -
John L -
Josè Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Kieren McCarthy -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Rajnesh D. Singh -
Robert Guerra -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Thomas Roessler -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vanda Scartezini UOL -
Veni Markovski -
Vittorio Bertola