Donna: I'm in agreement that the 4-day B meeting is intended to be one that "would be possible in those regions because they would not require all the bells and whistles of a normal meeting, and in theory, not as many people would attend". However, at least in 2016, the full-length A meeting in Marrakech is likely to be subject to lower attendance because of travel costs and security concerns (this opinion based on what I've heard from many individuals/organizations that usually attend ICANN meetings). Further, the 2016 B meeting, had it been held in Panama City absent the Zika Virus-caused cancelation, would likely have attracted a large turnout due to the fact that many usual attendees are planning to skip Marrakech, and Panama City was perceived as an attractive and relatively easy to reach destination (and one that certainly has the hotel capacity to accommodate a large turnout). Whether that will hold true for the relocated site remains to be seen, although the first factor (lower turnout in Marrakech) will still apply. I'm not questioning the new meeting strategy - let's experience it and then form an opinion - just observing that there may be a gap between ICANN's intent and actual real world experience. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:12 AM To: Heather Forrest Cc: Edward Morris; James M. Bladel; Volker Greimann; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated Hi Heather You are correct that Meeting B is to be WG/policy focused. However, one of the challenges for the Meeting Strategy Working Group was how to continue outreach and regional rotation through locations that do not have the capacity to host a full-blown ICANN meeting -- this is particularly challenging in Africa and LAC regions. The conclusion we arrived at is that the WG/policy meetings would be possible in those regions because they would not require all the bells and whistles of a normal meeting, and in theory, not as many people would attend. So, while the solution seems counter-intuitive, it seemed a viable solution that allows for the continued rotation of meetings through the ICANN regions, which was identified as a high priority by the MSWG. Donna Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>> wrote: Colleagues, On a personal level I agree with Ed's suggestion re regional hubs. Re Panama, I was facing the prospect of more time in the air between Tasmania and Panama than on the ground at the meeting. At the same time, I'm always willing to travel the huge distance for f2f meetings because I find it invaluable to have everyone in the same room at one time and not be reliant upon AC room queues. Plus, we all know how those video links into ICANN public forums from regional locations work (or not)..... Isn't meeting B our WG-focused meeting where we're all head down, locked in a room, trying to make real progress? If so, it likely doesn't suit the regional hub approach, much as the length the meeting and the faraway venue does. Best wishes, Heather ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 3:17 To: James M. Bladel Cc: Volker Greimann; Austin, Donna; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated A meeting with regional hubs for most with dispersed central meeting spots for Council and other like groups might be worth trying, particularly for B. Flying four days to attend a meeting for four days just does not make a lot of sense for many of us. Sent from my iPhone On 8 Feb 2016, at 03:58, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Basically with Volker. There's value in a face-to-face meeting, but ICANN can still do more to facilitate remote participation, especially for meetings (like the one upcoming) where attendance is projected to be lower. And expanded use of remote hubs / satellite locations would be preferable to dialing in on your own.... Thanks- J. From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 4:37 To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated Hi Donna, I agree that ICANN should improve their capacity for virtual participation, however I feel that ultimately the ability to meet face to face and discuss on the side of the events is very important to a smooth operation of the meeting and cannot completely be replaced by remote participation. But having better virtual participation options as a choice would be helpful and a great improvement over the sometimes spotty phone bridge. Holographic representation would be nice ;-) Best, Volker Am 06.02.2016 um 00:29 schrieb Austin, Donna: Maybe it's time for ICANN to experiment with a full virtual meeting, connecting hubs around the world. The costs associated with having to change locations on a reasonably frequent basis are, I'm sure, not trivial. Not to mention an enormous strain on the Nick and his team. From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:04 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated Thanks for the heads up Phil. Here's the statement from ICANN. J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. Begin forwarded message: From: David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>> Date: February 5, 2016 at 16:53:47 CST To: "soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>" <soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org>> Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated Please see the recent announcement regarding ICANN 56: ** https://meetings.icann.org/en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__meetings.icann.org_en&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=JMnm7gxzeRA3myMkHQfkjMuGK2fCOLF7QwZNjV5Ehpw&s=vYsWFLoraLmMBa3beRQhnVRwlY36Iv3LcsSPLCBPCSE&e=>/ ICANN56 to be Relocated ICANN56, scheduled to be held in Panama in June 2016, will be moved to another location due to the severity of the Zika Virus outbreak in the Latin America region. A search is currently underway to identify an alternate location where the Zika Virus is not a concern. We look forward to returning to Panama for a future ICANN Meeting. David A. Olive Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 Email: david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org> www.icann.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=CwMF-g&c...> _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert@icann.org<mailto:soac-infoalert@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_soac-2Dinfoalert&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=t_Le9tU2oBr-3_16ZuoOPT1uPb7CK8w2w1q1Z6PtWiE&s=ZOSJoRPVBWhkdt8WqVjrOekRtIj2c37z0XdA0QRvq10&e=> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.