Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt
On 26-10-18 08:48, Kurt Pritz wrote:
* In the second or third week of January
As January 23-25 is the GNSO Council Strategic Planning session in LA, at least those of us who are on the GNSO council are unavailable that week. As to location, I definitely support Brussels. Julf
Kurt, There is a face to face of the RDS Review Team in Brussels Dec 10, 11, 12. That involves a number of EPDP members. There is a board retreat in LA in January 24 through 27. Cheers, Chris
On 26 Oct 2018, at 08:48, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear Kurt Dear All Thank you very much for the message. I have missed the first F2f MEETING DUE TO ITS LOCATION.and I do not want I miss the next f2f meeting. This serious and shall be taken into account I therefore oppose to be held in any country which has general ban on the nationals of other countries Europe would be one suggestion or Canada another suggestion Moreover, I have a fir commitment from 05 JAN to 14Jan.IN BUSAN kOREA Consequently I can manage second week of December Regards Kavouss On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:18 AM Chris Disspain < chris.disspain@board.icann.org> wrote:
Kurt,
There is a face to face of the RDS Review Team in Brussels Dec 10, 11, 12. That involves a number of EPDP members.
There is a board retreat in LA in January 24 through 27.
Cheers,
Chris
On 26 Oct 2018, at 08:48, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Kurt, I strongly support F2F meetings and I agree that a meeting sooner than January would be optimal. Chris has already mentioned the possible conflict with the RDS-WHOIS2-RT. Looking a bit farther out, the travel lists for the ICANN64 meeting in Kobe, Japan are due in just over a week, so it is crucial that we have a decision on whether there will be a meeting and who will be funded ASAP. Alan At 26/10/2018 02:48 AM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Meeting in December is out. My job keeps me busy until the holidays. I agree with Ayden that we should meet after the first public comments are in. It’s somewhat dismissive of the public comments to meet before they are in. I do not actually agree that we cannot get things done online – we haven’t ever really tried, imho. Either way we are going to have to get the initial report done without a f2f so let’s see how well we can do. --MM From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:37 PM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>; GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Hi Kurt, I strongly support F2F meetings and I agree that a meeting sooner than January would be optimal. Chris has already mentioned the possible conflict with the RDS-WHOIS2-RT. Looking a bit farther out, the travel lists for the ICANN64 meeting in Kobe, Japan are due in just over a week, so it is crucial that we have a decision on whether there will be a meeting and who will be funded ASAP. Alan At 26/10/2018 02:48 AM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear Kurt I hope you have had a safe journey and recovered from the hard works done. As I informed you before, there are several engagements for me in December 2018 and the first two week of January 2019. I did also inform you that I do not want to be excluded from participating at that f2f meeting Consequently, the meeting should not be held in USA which imposed A general BAN nationals* of our country * I therefore suggest that we preferably meet in the third or fourth week of January 2019 *and not first or second week of that month as I will be in Busan Republic of Korea* or the first or second week of December 2018 as second alternative. However, the date duration and venue of the meeting should be decided as soon as possible in order to allow everyone to make its agenda appropriately Pls kindly reply to this question as soon as possible Regards Kavouss On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:43 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Meeting in December is out. My job keeps me busy until the holidays. I agree with Ayden that we should meet after the first public comments are in. It’s somewhat dismissive of the public comments to meet before they are in. I do not actually agree that we cannot get things done online – we haven’t ever really tried, imho. Either way we are going to have to get the initial report done without a f2f so let’s see how well we can do.
--MM
*From:* Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:37 PM *To:* Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>; GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting
Hi Kurt,
I strongly support F2F meetings and I agree that a meeting sooner than January would be optimal. Chris has already mentioned the possible conflict with the RDS-WHOIS2-RT.
Looking a bit farther out, the travel lists for the ICANN64 meeting in Kobe, Japan are due in just over a week, so it is crucial that we have a decision on whether there will be a meeting and who will be funded ASAP.
Alan
At 26/10/2018 02:48 AM, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to. Farzaneh On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team < gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I also support Istanbul Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Oct 2018, at 19:20, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote: Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler. Thanks. Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear All For me Istanbul or any other schengen countries are acceptable provided that the meeting g take place during the third week if Jan .2019 as I i formed you before I will arrive from BUSAN 13 Jan . 2345 I will be ready to travel any where in which there is no General Entry Ban but preferably Europe or Istanbul Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Oct 2018, at 09:57, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote: Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear All, I can see the merit of the December meeting where we certainly still have a lot of work to finish and it would be good to either finish most of this work or at least know the contentious parts of it as early as possible (before the holidays) however, I do realize that it could be inconvenient for some and for me both dates are doable. As for the location I am fine with whatever you agree on (I have existing visas for all of the suggested locations), but Europe or Canada would certainly be closer. Best Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 12:24 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Dear All For me Istanbul or any other schengen countries are acceptable provided that the meeting g take place during the third week if Jan .2019 as I i formed you before I will arrive from BUSAN 13 Jan . 2345 I will be ready to travel any where in which there is no General Entry Ban but preferably Europe or Istanbul Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 29 Oct 2018, at 09:57, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to. Farzaneh On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will take you much less time than you actually think. Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to. Farzaneh On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I don’t want to belabor the point that others have made more articulately than I will, but while I think there is value in holding another face-to-face, there is unlikely to be any one set of dates or location that works for everyone. I am also mindful of the limited budget that we have to work with, and the close attention that the GNSO has been paying to managing its resources to ensure that all of its chartered activities are done at reasonable cost. I am happy to put my hand up here and to say that I have been questioning ICANN org's spend on many activities, and so I feel it would be hypocritical not to do the same here. So I am certainly happy to defer to leadership to decide where and when to hold the meeting, but I do take objection to the idea that a meeting could be held in a location like Istanbul where we have no members and no staff residing, and where to the best of my knowledge the ICANN office would be too small to accomodate us. I would not be supportive of the collective time lost putting a majority of our members onto a long-haul flight. We all have many obligations and commitments at present, and aside from losing time recovering from jet lag, it strikes me as incredibly inefficient to make 20 people travel for 14 hours (and another 10+ people travel for 5 hours) to reach a destination where the only reason for having a meeting there would be because of a slightly more liberal visa system. I am afraid that ICANN cannot resolve the inequalities and discrimination that are present in the world’s visa processes and systems. It is unfair, yes, but just like we cannot fix MLATs or bring about world peace, we do what we can. It is my view that the meeting should be local for as many people as possible. The way that we recalibrate and address barriers to participation is by providing travel funding to bring as many people to the meeting as possible, no matter where in the world they may live, and by having real remote participation for those who do face visa obstacles. The solution is not to make everyone fly half way around the world to Turkey. That’s neither a prudent use of ICANN’s resources nor a good use of the time of our very busy members. I understand we have one member who cannot travel to the US and some who may need to apply for visas. We should definitely be planning ahead so that visas can be applied for immediately and to minimise the cost of travel to ICANN. Perhaps our US GAC representatives can assist those who have difficulties entering the US with making the appropriate arrangements. But I strongly object to the idea that a meeting cannot be held in a country simply because one of our 32 members cannot travel there. I know this may sound harsh, but we talking about spending public interest money here, and we should be doing so prudently. If it would be cheaper to hold the meeting in the United States, and a majority of EPDP members are based there, I believe we should do so. Conserve funds, volunteer time, and our health. As has been shown in September, ICANN is able to deliver high-quality remote participation facilities from Los Angeles. I believe ICANN also has conference space in Washington D.C., which might be a shorter trip for more travellers. I write this message in my personal capacity, acknowledging very clearly that my position here is likely different to that from other NCSG representatives on the EPDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 11:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will take you much less time than you actually think.
Hadia
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting
Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Another option would be to have 2 locations for the meeting – one in DC and one in Brussels – with video conference. NoAm members go to DC; everyone else goes to the location that works best for them. We could use ICANN’s existing office space (although I don’t know how much space there is in Brussels); we’d have a CBI person in each office; staff would be divided between the 2 locations; and we could split the time difference for start/end times. Kurt would decide where he wants to work from. From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:09 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting I don’t want to belabor the point that others have made more articulately than I will, but while I think there is value in holding another face-to-face, there is unlikely to be any one set of dates or location that works for everyone. I am also mindful of the limited budget that we have to work with, and the close attention that the GNSO has been paying to managing its resources to ensure that all of its chartered activities are done at reasonable cost. I am happy to put my hand up here and to say that I have been questioning ICANN org's spend on many activities, and so I feel it would be hypocritical not to do the same here. So I am certainly happy to defer to leadership to decide where and when to hold the meeting, but I do take objection to the idea that a meeting could be held in a location like Istanbul where we have no members and no staff residing, and where to the best of my knowledge the ICANN office would be too small to accomodate us. I would not be supportive of the collective time lost putting a majority of our members onto a long-haul flight. We all have many obligations and commitments at present, and aside from losing time recovering from jet lag, it strikes me as incredibly inefficient to make 20 people travel for 14 hours (and another 10+ people travel for 5 hours) to reach a destination where the only reason for having a meeting there would be because of a slightly more liberal visa system. I am afraid that ICANN cannot resolve the inequalities and discrimination that are present in the world’s visa processes and systems. It is unfair, yes, but just like we cannot fix MLATs or bring about world peace, we do what we can. It is my view that the meeting should be local for as many people as possible. The way that we recalibrate and address barriers to participation is by providing travel funding to bring as many people to the meeting as possible, no matter where in the world they may live, and by having real remote participation for those who do face visa obstacles. The solution is not to make everyone fly half way around the world to Turkey. That’s neither a prudent use of ICANN’s resources nor a good use of the time of our very busy members. I understand we have one member who cannot travel to the US and some who may need to apply for visas. We should definitely be planning ahead so that visas can be applied for immediately and to minimise the cost of travel to ICANN. Perhaps our US GAC representatives can assist those who have difficulties entering the US with making the appropriate arrangements. But I strongly object to the idea that a meeting cannot be held in a country simply because one of our 32 members cannot travel there. I know this may sound harsh, but we talking about spending public interest money here, and we should be doing so prudently. If it would be cheaper to hold the meeting in the United States, and a majority of EPDP members are based there, I believe we should do so. Conserve funds, volunteer time, and our health. As has been shown in September, ICANN is able to deliver high-quality remote participation facilities from Los Angeles. I believe ICANN also has conference space in Washington D.C., which might be a shorter trip for more travellers. I write this message in my personal capacity, acknowledging very clearly that my position here is likely different to that from other NCSG representatives on the EPDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 11:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will take you much less time than you actually think. Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to. Farzaneh On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Kristina, All, The boardroom in the Brussels office can seat 15 or thereabouts. Any more will be a squash. Cheers, CD
On 30 Oct 2018, at 18:14, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Another option would be to have 2 locations for the meeting – one in DC and one in Brussels – with video conference. NoAm members go to DC; everyone else goes to the location that works best for them. We could use ICANN’s existing office space (although I don’t know how much space there is in Brussels); we’d have a CBI person in each office; staff would be divided between the 2 locations; and we could split the time difference for start/end times. Kurt would decide where he wants to work from.
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:09 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting
I don’t want to belabor the point that others have made more articulately than I will, but while I think there is value in holding another face-to-face, there is unlikely to be any one set of dates or location that works for everyone.
I am also mindful of the limited budget that we have to work with, and the close attention that the GNSO has been paying to managing its resources to ensure that all of its chartered activities are done at reasonable cost. I am happy to put my hand up here and to say that I have been questioning ICANN org's spend on many activities, and so I feel it would be hypocritical not to do the same here.
So I am certainly happy to defer to leadership to decide where and when to hold the meeting, but I do take objection to the idea that a meeting could be held in a location like Istanbul where we have no members and no staff residing, and where to the best of my knowledge the ICANN office would be too small to accomodate us.
I would not be supportive of the collective time lost putting a majority of our members onto a long-haul flight. We all have many obligations and commitments at present, and aside from losing time recovering from jet lag, it strikes me as incredibly inefficient to make 20 people travel for 14 hours (and another 10+ people travel for 5 hours) to reach a destination where the only reason for having a meeting there would be because of a slightly more liberal visa system.
I am afraid that ICANN cannot resolve the inequalities and discrimination that are present in the world’s visa processes and systems. It is unfair, yes, but just like we cannot fix MLATs or bring about world peace, we do what we can. It is my view that the meeting should be local for as many people as possible. The way that we recalibrate and address barriers to participation is by providing travel funding to bring as many people to the meeting as possible, no matter where in the world they may live, and by having real remote participation for those who do face visa obstacles. The solution is not to make everyone fly half way around the world to Turkey. That’s neither a prudent use of ICANN’s resources nor a good use of the time of our very busy members.
I understand we have one member who cannot travel to the US and some who may need to apply for visas. We should definitely be planning ahead so that visas can be applied for immediately and to minimise the cost of travel to ICANN. Perhaps our US GAC representatives can assist those who have difficulties entering the US with making the appropriate arrangements. But I strongly object to the idea that a meeting cannot be held in a country simply because one of our 32 members cannot travel there. I know this may sound harsh, but we talking about spending public interest money here, and we should be doing so prudently.
If it would be cheaper to hold the meeting in the United States, and a majority of EPDP members are based there, I believe we should do so. Conserve funds, volunteer time, and our health. As has been shown in September, ICANN is able to deliver high-quality remote participation facilities from Los Angeles. I believe ICANN also has conference space in Washington D.C., which might be a shorter trip for more travellers.
I write this message in my personal capacity, acknowledging very clearly that my position here is likely different to that from other NCSG representatives on the EPDP. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 11:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will take you much less time than you actually think.
Hadia
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting
Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.
Farzaneh
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi,
I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.
Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.
Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.
Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:
Hi!
I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.
I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.
If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)
K
On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote: Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US). Julf
Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot? Best regards, Marika On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote: I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US). Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Thanks, Marika, I added comments. Julf On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote:
Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear All Someone become a book writer and forgets the basic rights of others It is not the matter if Visait us clear cut discrimination in a non discriminative universal multi stakeholder Pls kindly understand the problems if others Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 14:10, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Thanks, Marika, I added comments.
Julf
On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear Kavouss, I sincerely hope your comment is not aimed at me. Julf On 31-10-18 15:08, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Someone become a book writer and forgets the basic rights of others It is not the matter if Visait us clear cut discrimination in a non discriminative universal multi stakeholder Pls kindly understand the problems if others Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 14:10, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Thanks, Marika, I added comments.
Julf
On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear July Not at all my friend Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 16:24, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
I sincerely hope your comment is not aimed at me.
Julf
On 31-10-18 15:08, Arasteh wrote: Dear All Someone become a book writer and forgets the basic rights of others It is not the matter if Visait us clear cut discrimination in a non discriminative universal multi stakeholder Pls kindly understand the problems if others Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 14:10, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Thanks, Marika, I added comments.
Julf
On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Marika I can not have access to doodle Pls put my name for Any place than USA and for January 2919 third week Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 14:10, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Thanks, Marika, I added comments.
Julf
On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Dear July I am sorry by mid transmission I did not addressed to my distinguished friend at all There was other people ignoring my legitimate right . Moreover, this issue can not be out to Doodle if THE COUNTRY imposing ban to other countries is included in the must I have no problem to travel to any country under internationally recognized the right of all people to apply for visa without any discriminative general ban to nationals of other country I am sorry for pushing wrong key in sending the message to you . Thanks fir understanding Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2018, at 14:10, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Thanks, Marika, I added comments.
Julf
On 31-10-18 13:17, Marika Konings wrote: Thanks, Julf. Maybe you can use the comment box to indicate which dates you can make if it is in a North American location and which ones you cannot?
Best regards,
Marika
On 10/31/18, 6:15 AM, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
I have a small issue with the Doodle poll - some of my answers depend on the location (considering the extra travel time to/from the US).
Julf _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
To be clear, this is a personal suggestion, not an RySG one. From: Rosette, Kristina Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:14 PM To: 'Ayden Férdeline' <icann@ferdeline.com>; Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Another option would be to have 2 locations for the meeting – one in DC and one in Brussels – with video conference. NoAm members go to DC; everyone else goes to the location that works best for them. We could use ICANN’s existing office space (although I don’t know how much space there is in Brussels); we’d have a CBI person in each office; staff would be divided between the 2 locations; and we could split the time difference for start/end times. Kurt would decide where he wants to work from. From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:09 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting I don’t want to belabor the point that others have made more articulately than I will, but while I think there is value in holding another face-to-face, there is unlikely to be any one set of dates or location that works for everyone. I am also mindful of the limited budget that we have to work with, and the close attention that the GNSO has been paying to managing its resources to ensure that all of its chartered activities are done at reasonable cost. I am happy to put my hand up here and to say that I have been questioning ICANN org's spend on many activities, and so I feel it would be hypocritical not to do the same here. So I am certainly happy to defer to leadership to decide where and when to hold the meeting, but I do take objection to the idea that a meeting could be held in a location like Istanbul where we have no members and no staff residing, and where to the best of my knowledge the ICANN office would be too small to accomodate us. I would not be supportive of the collective time lost putting a majority of our members onto a long-haul flight. We all have many obligations and commitments at present, and aside from losing time recovering from jet lag, it strikes me as incredibly inefficient to make 20 people travel for 14 hours (and another 10+ people travel for 5 hours) to reach a destination where the only reason for having a meeting there would be because of a slightly more liberal visa system. I am afraid that ICANN cannot resolve the inequalities and discrimination that are present in the world’s visa processes and systems. It is unfair, yes, but just like we cannot fix MLATs or bring about world peace, we do what we can. It is my view that the meeting should be local for as many people as possible. The way that we recalibrate and address barriers to participation is by providing travel funding to bring as many people to the meeting as possible, no matter where in the world they may live, and by having real remote participation for those who do face visa obstacles. The solution is not to make everyone fly half way around the world to Turkey. That’s neither a prudent use of ICANN’s resources nor a good use of the time of our very busy members. I understand we have one member who cannot travel to the US and some who may need to apply for visas. We should definitely be planning ahead so that visas can be applied for immediately and to minimise the cost of travel to ICANN. Perhaps our US GAC representatives can assist those who have difficulties entering the US with making the appropriate arrangements. But I strongly object to the idea that a meeting cannot be held in a country simply because one of our 32 members cannot travel there. I know this may sound harsh, but we talking about spending public interest money here, and we should be doing so prudently. If it would be cheaper to hold the meeting in the United States, and a majority of EPDP members are based there, I believe we should do so. Conserve funds, volunteer time, and our health. As has been shown in September, ICANN is able to deliver high-quality remote participation facilities from Los Angeles. I believe ICANN also has conference space in Washington D.C., which might be a shorter trip for more travellers. I write this message in my personal capacity, acknowledging very clearly that my position here is likely different to that from other NCSG representatives on the EPDP. Thank you. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 11:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will take you much less time than you actually think. Hadia From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM To: farzaneh badii Cc: GNSO EPDP Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to. Farzaneh On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote: Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Agree on preferring January over December. US, Canada or Schengen/EU are my preferences. J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:32 To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Also agree on January over December and should be a location accessible to all. Diane Sent from my iPhone On Oct 28, 2018, at 10:32 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Agree on preferring January over December. US, Canada or Schengen/EU are my preferences. J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja>> Date: Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:32 To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Hi, I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report. Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress. Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US. Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too. Thanks. Amr On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> wrote: Hi! I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home. I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts. If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.) K On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team> _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Hi Kurt, all, Let me join those who are in favor of holding a meeting in Jan. I have a commitment in Germany I cannot move on Jan 15th, so I might need to join remotely if the meeting is in that week. We have not yet discussed how long the meeting shall be, so the later in the week, the higher the chances I can be with you throughout the entire meeting. I would be ok with traveling on Wed, meeting Thurs to Sat as well. The last two weeks of Jan would work for me entirely. As regards location, I would really defer to staff and our leadership to make a decision taking into account cost efficiency and potential synergies with other meetings. As you can see from my comments above, I as many others have limitations affecting their availability and I am happy to join remotely if need be. Best, Thomas
Am 26.10.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
Since we are all providing unavailbilities, I am unavailable the week of the 21st Jan. Agreed that January generally would be better than December, and I would agree that an EMEA location may be best all considering. Alan On Mon 29 Oct 2018 at 11:17, Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> wrote:
Hi Kurt, all, Let me join those who are in favor of holding a meeting in Jan. I have a commitment in Germany I cannot move on Jan 15th, so I might need to join remotely if the meeting is in that week. We have not yet discussed how long the meeting shall be, so the later in the week, the higher the chances I can be with you throughout the entire meeting. I would be ok with traveling on Wed, meeting Thurs to Sat as well. The last two weeks of Jan would work for me entirely.
As regards location, I would really defer to staff and our leadership to make a decision taking into account cost efficiency and potential synergies with other meetings. As you can see from my comments above, I as many others have limitations affecting their availability and I am happy to join remotely if need be.
Best, Thomas
Am 26.10.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-- [image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains> Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ------------------------------ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
Rather than providing my personal availability (other than to say January would be preferred), I would just say that I trust the leadership team to schedule the meeting at the time and place which will work best for the majority of the team and that is feasible for the ICANN meetings team. I’m sure it will be impossible to get a time and location that works for everyone, but hopefully with the support of all the alternates we can have broad representation whenever and wherever we end up. Regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> Date: Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:50 AM To: Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Since we are all providing unavailbilities, I am unavailable the week of the 21st Jan. Agreed that January generally would be better than December, and I would agree that an EMEA location may be best all considering. Alan On Mon 29 Oct 2018 at 11:17, Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> wrote: Hi Kurt, all, Let me join those who are in favor of holding a meeting in Jan. I have a commitment in Germany I cannot move on Jan 15th, so I might need to join remotely if the meeting is in that week. We have not yet discussed how long the meeting shall be, so the later in the week, the higher the chances I can be with you throughout the entire meeting. I would be ok with traveling on Wed, meeting Thurs to Sat as well. The last two weeks of Jan would work for me entirely. As regards location, I would really defer to staff and our leadership to make a decision taking into account cost efficiency and potential synergies with other meetings. As you can see from my comments above, I as many others have limitations affecting their availability and I am happy to join remotely if need be. Best, Thomas Am 26.10.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team -- [Image removed by sender. Donuts Inc.]<http://donuts.domains/> Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ________________________________ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland [Image removed by sender.]<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> [Image removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> [Image removed by sender.] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
I agree with Matt. There will be no date that works for everyone, and with the exception of Kurt, no one has a veto. That's why we have alternates. I suggest a Doodle to gauge availability. Alan At 29/10/2018 09:07 AM, Matt Serlin wrote: Rather than providing my personal availability (other than to say January would be preferred), I would just say that I trust the leadership team to schedule the meeting at the time and place which will work best for the majority of the team and that is feasible for the ICANN meetings team. I’m sure it will be impossible to get a time and location that works for everyone, but hopefully with the support of all the alternates we can have broad representation whenever and wherever we end up. Regards, Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Woods <alan@donuts.email> Date: Monday, October 29, 2018 at 6:50 AM To: Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting Since we are all providing unavailbilities, I am unavailable the week of the 21st Jan. Agreed that January generally would be better than December, and I would agree that an EMEA location may be best all considering. Alan On Mon 29 Oct 2018 at 11:17, Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> wrote: Hi Kurt, all, Let me join those who are in favor of holding a meeting in Jan. I have a commitment in Germany I cannot move on Jan 15th, so I might need to join remotely if the meeting is in that week. We have not yet discussed how long the meeting shall be, so the later in the week, the higher the chances I can be with you throughout the entire meeting. I would be ok with traveling on Wed, meeting Thurs to Sat as well. The last two weeks of Jan would work for me entirely. As regards location, I would really defer to staff and our leadership to make a decision taking into account cost efficiency and potential synergies with other meetings. As you can see from my comments above, I as many others have limitations affecting their availability and I am happy to join remotely if need be. Best, Thomas Am 26.10.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format The proverbial clock is ticking We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting In the first or second week in December In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team -- [Image removed by sender. Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains/> Alan Woods Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc. ________________________________ The Victorians, 15-18 Earlsfort Terrace Dublin 2, County Dublin Ireland [Image removed by sender. Donuts Inc.] <https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds> [Image removed by sender. Donuts Inc.] <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc> [Image removed by sender. Donuts Inc.] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
I hereby impose a mandatory "chill out" time on everyone on this thread at my own discretion with no power whatsoever. And also it's mandatory to listen to this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeaS6fuUoA&fbclid=IwAR1x9queL2qBLfXNowjx8jL0-pLa24a2mbnobQrpVOGWBGdJgX0OkoQn5RA Farzaneh On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
At the risk of violating the ban on responding to this thread, just want to say…, what a great tune!! Happy Wednesday to all. Thanks. Amr Sent from Mobile On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
I hereby impose a mandatory "chill out" time on everyone on this thread at my own discretion with no power whatsoever. And also it's mandatory to listen to this song:
Farzaneh
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:
Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.
Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:
- Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format - The proverbial clock is ticking - We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore - We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.
With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting
- In the first or second week in December - In the second or third week of January
[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]
I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.
1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.
2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).
I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.
Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,
Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.
Best regards,
Kurt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
This is awesome, Farzaneh and Amr – thank you. We all need to take a step back, appreciate our collective and individual efforts and time dedication to this team; thank staff, thank each other and move forward cooperatively to what is destined to be a successful completion of our work. Happy Wednesday! Thanks to all - Diane Diane Plaut General Counsel and Privacy Officer [cid:image001.png@01D3CA70.18FC1D40] Direct +1 646-899-2806 diane.plaut@corsearch.com<mailto:diane.plaut@corsearch.com> 220 West 42nd Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10036, United States www.corsearch.com<http://www.corsearch.com/> Join Corsearch on Twitter<https://twitter.com/corsearch> Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/2593860/> Trademarks + Brands<http://trademarksandbrands.corsearch.com/> Customer Service/Platform Support: 1 800 SEARCH1™ (1 800 732 7241) Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com<mailto:Corsearch.USCustomerService@corsearch.com> Confidentiality Notice: This email and its attachments (if any) contain confidential information of the sender. The information is intended only for the use by the direct addressees of the original sender of this email. If you are not an intended recipient of the original sender (or responsible for delivering the message to such person), you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of and attachments to this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender at the address shown herein and permanently delete any copies of this email (digital or paper) in your possession. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:42 PM To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting At the risk of violating the ban on responding to this thread, just want to say…, what a great tune!! Happy Wednesday to all. Thanks. Amr Sent from Mobile On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:26 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: I hereby impose a mandatory "chill out" time on everyone on this thread at my own discretion with no power whatsoever. And also it's mandatory to listen to this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeaS6fuUoA&fbclid=IwAR1x9queL2qBLfXNowjx8jL0-pLa24a2mbnobQrpVOGWBGdJgX0OkoQn5RA<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeaS6fuUoA&fbclid=IwAR1x9queL2qBLfXNowjx8jL0-pLa24a2mbnobQrpVOGWBGdJgX0OkoQn5RA> Farzaneh On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:49 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Everyone: Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer. Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points: * Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format * The proverbial clock is ticking * We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore * We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible. With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting * In the first or second week in December * In the second or third week of January [Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.] I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week. 1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment. 2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case). I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later. Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat, Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday. Best regards, Kurt _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
participants (18)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alan Woods -
Amr Elsadr -
Arasteh -
Ayden Férdeline -
Chris Disspain -
farzaneh badii -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Kurt Pritz -
Marika Konings -
Matt Serlin -
Mueller, Milton L -
Plaut, Diane -
Rosette, Kristina -
Thomas Rickert