Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy. I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk. Rubens
I'll repeat my comments again. The F2F WG meetings are not part of the meeting proper,do not replace WG meetings or other policy work at meetings (they are generally closed, do not involve interaction with other groups, etc), and should be regarded as an extension of inter-sessional work that simply happens to occur with along side meeting for practical reasons. Sent from my iPad
On 10 Mar 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider
I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy.
I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk.
Rubens
Actually, scheduling a meeting while people that could otherwise attend remotely but since they are travelling to arrive the next day they will in airport lines and lounges could be worse. I don't recall whether we have formal black-out dates where no WG meetings besides the ones in the formal schedule can be scheduled, but if not we should consider having them, and allowing for some travel days to get there and back. Rubens
On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:26 PM, David Cake <dave@davecake.net> wrote:
I'll repeat my comments again. The F2F WG meetings are not part of the meeting proper,do not replace WG meetings or other policy work at meetings (they are generally closed, do not involve interaction with other groups, etc), and should be regarded as an extension of inter-sessional work that simply happens to occur with along side meeting for practical reasons.
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Mar 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider
I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy.
I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk.
Rubens
I agree with David. The CCWG Accountability meetings we have had prior to general ICANN meetings have been totally separate affairs from the general meeting itself. They would be necessary regardless of whether ICANN even had a general meeting. I appreciate being able to combine a working group meeting with a general meeting as it saves me both time and money in transport costs. I support the extra meeting day as proposed. Ed Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Mar 2016, at 13:29, David Cake <dave@davecake.net> wrote:
I'll repeat my comments again. The F2F WG meetings are not part of the meeting proper,do not replace WG meetings or other policy work at meetings (they are generally closed, do not involve interaction with other groups, etc), and should be regarded as an extension of inter-sessional work that simply happens to occur with along side meeting for practical reasons.
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Mar 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider
I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy.
I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk.
Rubens
It seems that all positions are towards having less cost to attend, so it seems the difference is whether the travel is ICANN-funded or member-funded, because when it's ICANN-funded, possible flight rescheduling costs are for ICANN to pay. Rubens
On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
I agree with David.
The CCWG Accountability meetings we have had prior to general ICANN meetings have been totally separate affairs from the general meeting itself. They would be necessary regardless of whether ICANN even had a general meeting. I appreciate being able to combine a working group meeting with a general meeting as it saves me both time and money in transport costs. I support the extra meeting day as proposed.
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Mar 2016, at 13:29, David Cake <dave@davecake.net> wrote:
I'll repeat my comments again. The F2F WG meetings are not part of the meeting proper,do not replace WG meetings or other policy work at meetings (they are generally closed, do not involve interaction with other groups, etc), and should be regarded as an extension of inter-sessional work that simply happens to occur with along side meeting for practical reasons.
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Mar 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider
I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy.
I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk.
Rubens
On 10-03-16 23:22, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
possible flight rescheduling costs are for ICANN to pay.
On that note, I am still still slightly concerned about the TripCase notifications I keep getting for gate changes for the flights ICANN Travel originally suggested to me but that I declined. I assume the flights got entered into TripCase and never removed, but has anyone ever followed up and made sure there aren't unused (and wasted) flight bookings being made? Julf
Thank you Rubens. My comments below
I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus most days of a B meeting on policy.
Yes, if the “policy” meetings are effective internal (open) WORKING-G meetings, instead of bilateral or multilateral “exchange” meetings
If ICANN is also doing outreach, those tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy.
Or left for the longer meetings.
I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes of the new meeting strategy was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this is now at risk.
If Plan B not effective for advancing policy WORK, then we will spend more time flying and money in less transparent individual F2F meetings Carlos Raul
Rubens
participants (5)
-
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. -
David Cake -
Edward Morris -
Johan Helsingius -
Rubens Kuhl