Commentson proposed incremental changes to the ICANN Meeting strategy by MichelleChaplow I was privileged to be a member of the ICANNMeetings Strategy Working Group (MSWG) in 2014. I understand that the purpose of this commentperiod is focused, and limited, however I would like to make a comment regardingremote participation, that I believewould be of help to the ICANN meetings. Without doubt attending an ICANN meeting inperson is a far superior experience to remote participation, however satellitehub meetings, held at other locations around the world, could offer a cost-effectiveremote participation solution. The advantages main of remote hubs in my opinionare: It´s relatively cost effective, maybe one roomfor 30-40 people? It provides local outreach opportunities for allconstituencies. I know myself that with pure remoteparticipation, it’s very difficult to be fully immersed with the distraction ofparallel day-to-day business activity; this option would provide a focusedenvironment. ICANN would have the participation of communitymembers that otherwise would not be able to attend. Unfortunately The MSWG did not have the time toeffectively peruse this idea. My recommendation is that strategic remote hubs,during ICANN meetings, should be evaluated, then tried and tested. 31 Jan 2018