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
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
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
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
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….
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.
Thanks for the heads up Phil. Here's the statement from ICANN.
J.
Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
Please see the recent announcement regarding ICANN 56:
**
https://meetings.icann.org/en/
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.
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.