I agree 100% -- let's have two policy meetings a year and one AGM with bells and whistles. -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. [mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:58 AM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> Cc: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58 Dear Donna, I´m aware of the background and the great design work based on past experience. But I just have to say that the new meeting meeting ‘strategy’ was largely designed to pelase everybody and before we could measure the impact of the new empowered community CCWGs, overlapping AoC reviews, and 1000+ new gTLDs and GDD exclusive gatherings, which require an increasing number of small meetings along the year at great cost and expense. Having said that, I must confess that Helsinki was a great surprise in “policy-efficiency” and reduced non-sense I would like to emulate as far as possible. Looking forward, we should take the best of the new meetings format (and forget such ones as Hyderabad). Nobody said we can keep improving. Lets hope for an ICANN58 where we can work effectively. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 29 Nov 2016, at 12:32, Austin, Donna wrote:
Hi Carlos
While your suggestion makes perfect sense the reality is that the smaller meeting B, ie Policy Meetings, were designed to enable ICANN to host meetings in locations predominately in the African and LAC regions that can no longer host the larger ICANN meetings.
Prior to the establishment of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG), Nick Tomasso published a proposal suggesting that hub locations be used, although Nick called them Consolidated Meeting Locations, and adjusted the rotation through regions. Nick's proposal was rejected and the MSWG was established.
Nick's proposal is available at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_ system_files_files_meetings-2Dproposal-2D02oct12-2Den.pdf&d=DgIFaQ&c=M OptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m= yA8iJGrUhu-hw5NhgxHt3EdCjsUkyvV5bP20-TWqVuM&s=VjxwKKLRyU0NB1BxRKcSSn4e jJsmlDbbj4MD-FjZHzs&e=
The MSWG also discussed the idea of hubs as well but agreed to continue regional rotation.
Donna
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 8:16 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Preliminary planning for ICANN58
Thank you James. But here we are working on the 2nd derivative: ICANN hubs for Policy (short) Meetings. Don´t know if this was also discarded.
Cheers
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 28 Nov 2016, at 20:34, James M. Bladel wrote:
Just a note that the Meeting Strategy Working Group examined the idea of “rotating hubs”, and rejected them. Mostly by folks from smaller and/or more distant locations who were concerned that ICANN would be permanently absent from their region.
I don’t agree, but that was their finding.
Thanks –
J.
On 11/28/16, 11:59 , "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Carlos
Ah ok, so the ICANN hubs. That makes a lot of sense from a cost and logistics perspective.
Regards
Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=D... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DgIDa...
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.pr ess&d=DgIDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQi PHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=obnrvP7RV_mivUaQVS4a9cHatG2L8sNQp2_1kIwp_sE&s=ye6GDL CGmvX5nyK-bXlJtz8HhIyjwJ2v_iVtg7en5ZE&e= - get our latest news & media coverage https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DgID... Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DgIDaQ&... Random Stuff: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DgIDaQ&c... ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 28/11/2016, 11:33, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
ICANN hubs: LA, Istambul and Singapore.
I assume that those places are central located in terms of airlines logistics, already have a minimum of ICANN staff available, facilites, etc. and would greatly reduce the cost to set up meetings (A recent meeting of the CCT-RT in Washington DC had to fly in as many ICANN staff members as RT members, which calls for more reasonable places to meet, particularly for mainle “working” meetings like the Policy Format calls for).
Cheers
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 26 Nov 2016, at 10:14, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> Carlos > > Which locations would you see as being “hubs”? > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=D... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DgIDa... > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DgIDaQ&c=... > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business > Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, > Ireland Company No.: 370845