August 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Student exercise on IANA transition
by Milton L Mueller Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

FYI, a group of professional-level students at the Meissen, Germany European Summer School on Internet Governance conducted an exercise on developing a consensus proposal on the IANA transition, a role play developed by Avri Doria. You can read about the interesting results here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-ian… Milton L Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org

1 0

Rép: Re: Mailing list behaviour
by jjs Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

@Patrik, point taken. Thank you. JJ. Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> a écrit : > >On 4 aug 2014, at 10:00, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: > >> My take-aways is this: >> - we should observe the rule you suggested of not adding cc: directly ON our list, nor in reverse. >> - While attracting the attention of CG members to the points you made (thank you Patrik), we have to accept that certain representatives have obligations towards their community, employer or principal, provided this is done on their SEPARATE lists, and by exercising due judgment. > >I might misunderstand you, but I am not against passing on what we say on this list. The contrary! > >The list archives are available and I know many people follow us closely. Including GNSO, ALAC members and more -- because I get privately questions from them. But just because the material on this list is available elsewhere I just think the parties communicating on this list should as much as possible be participants on this mailing list (only). We should not have this list as "the communication medium other parties use". > >We should have _other_ well functioning communication mechanisms for parties to contact us. > > Patrik >

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London.
by Joseph Alhadeff Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

Colleagues we seem to be on course to return to square one. If we are to move to something beyond rough consensus or for decision making as a whole we should consider how to interpret silence within a time frame for comment. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] Received: Monday, 04 Aug 2014, 4:22PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] CC: Coordination Group [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London. Dear All, I do not agree with the concept of " rough consensus " due to the fact that according to the international customary law ,there is no adjective for consensus. Consensus means merely consensus without soft or rough adjective Pls do not push us to follow the course of action or approach being used by IETF We are not IETF .We are coordination group on Transition of IANA function from NTIA to so-called multistakegholder community the constituent of which yet require clarification . We need to reach consensus not rough and not soft Regards K.ARASTEH 2014-08-04 11:36 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>: > I agree on the need for process and believe that looking to established > rules is useful. This should be our first decision. I also wanted to > clarify one point as to my recollection of the consensus in London; it was > solely for 3 co-chairs to be selected by a volunteer process. Those were > the only questions that were hummed. Anything else is a new proposal which > gets us back to a need for process. > > Best- > > Joe > > On 8/4/2014 3:38 AM, WUKnoben wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > thank you for your openly offered remarks, Jean-Jacques which I take very > seriously. > > It seems to me that your observations - besides the question of membership > and chair structure - make here the general point of how CIG members in > future can trust each other. This question - as usual in diverse groups - > is strongly related to the commonly understood and agreed process in > finding decisions. > > Our group is still lacking such an agreement. In London we just agreed to > follow the "rough consensus principle" but we understand and use different > means for it: humming, polls, no objections raised on the email list etc. > If we don't find a better way it will lead us deadlocked in almost every > question to be decided. > > Therefore I am convinced that we have to go through this part to clearly > define our decision making process. As a starter I attach an extract of the > GNSO Working Group Guidelines. I'm sure others may have similar approaches > with additional ideas. It is worthwile to put this together and come up > with a suggestion to be finalized at the Istanbul meeting. I'd be happy to > be part of a small prep team. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 7:35 PM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group, 2 weeks after London. > > Dear Colleagues, > > two weeks after our first Coordination Group (CG) meeting in London, I > would like to offer a few remarks. > > > FIRST, THERE IS A TENDENCY WITHIN OUR CG TO DISREGARD THE WIDER PICTURE. > > For most global Internet users, the NTIA statement about transitioning > stewardship of the IANA functions, while undoubtedly implying that > technical changes would be required, was primarily a political message > about the United States' willingness to hand over that stewardship. And for > the global user community, it is natural and acceptable that Washington, as > the current custodian, requires certain conditions to be met before > transition can be carried out. The fact that the timing of the NTIA > statement may have something to do with the Snowden revelations does not > diminish the value of the US proposal. > > To someone who follows US and world affairs quite closely, some attitudes > displayed in the CG show little awareness of the fact that the intentions > of the United States could be completely misunderstood. They also show > little consideration for the user communities in non-affluent societies. > > When it became clear that the membership of our Coordination Group was > heavily weighted in favour of a single geographic region (North America), > one citizenship (11 US citizens out of 30 members), as well as business > interests and technical operators, this was played down by several members > of the CG as representing a "purely political" dimension and therefore not > relevant to the matter in hand which, for them, should remain "purely > technical". > > To illustrate my point: in London I was given the opportunity ( thank you > Alissa ;-) ) to share a few thoughts about the geo-strategic challenges > facing the Internet, and their possible implications for the task of the > CG. In reaction, there was not a single question or remark: this was not > the silence of approval, but a lack of interest in the topic. Rest > reassured, I have no personal hangup about this; but I am concerned that > the CG seems to be ignoring an important dimension. > > > SECOND, SUCH A LACK OF CONSIDERATION FOR POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IS NOT > WITHOUT RISK. > > In London, through an agreed process, we reached a documented decision in > favour of 3 Co-Chairs. After London, some of you considered that you did > not like this result, and took the initiative to set up a poll. I mention > this topic of Chair structure because it encapsulates several of the > problems facing us now. > > The composition of our CG is what it is, we're not going to change it now. > But we owe it to the global community to show more sensitivity to some > wider issues. Are we impervious to the writing on the wall? Quite a few in > the global user community consider that the presence of US citizens, > already so strong in the CG, would not be justified in the Chair structure > and would in fact open our work to easy criticism, whatever the quality of > that work. It has also been noted that the presence of business interests > (already strongly represented in the CG) would be unjustified and unfair in > the chair structure. Let me be clear: this is not about the merits or > capacity of any individual, it is about over-representation and conflicts > of interest, real or perceived. > > Members of the CG should be aware that they are under close scrutiny by > the global community, and that the acceptability and credibility of their > final plan for transition will also hinge on the perceived process by which > this was developed. > > It is therefore important to demonstrate to the outside world that we > operate in an orderly, efficient and fair fashion, and that we follow > agreed processes and abide by our documented decisions. Deciding upon our > own leadership structure is an important first test. We need a leadership > structure that is the outcome of agreed process and which demonstrates the > CG's commitment to its duty to act in the interests of the global > stakeholder community. > > > THIRD, THE WAY FORWARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTENTIOUS. > > Like all of us on this list, I'm not interested in confining myself to > analysis or criticism. Here are my proposals moving forward: > > - Membership of the CG: let's just accept it as is. > > - Chair structure: for all the reasons already put forward by the ALAC, > having 3 Co-Chairs from 3 different geographic regions will garner the > widest support from the global community. This can be achieved in a simple > and straightforward way by the Interim Chair declaring that the poll (the > results of which are in any case open to widely differing interpretations) > will be put to one side, that the CG will continue as agreed in London, and > by calling for candidates for the 3 Co-Chairs. The timeline should be very > short. > > - Global public interest: in the future, we need to consciously take into > account the way in which our processes and choices may impact not only the > operators and clients of the IANA functions, but more generally the global > Internet community. This is the only way to ensure that the transition is a > durable success. > > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > >

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Charter commenting
by Mohamed El Bashir Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

Hi Alice, any updates regarding the action item related to the charter comment period, i have not seen any announcement about a comment period, its also not online in ICG web pages. The proposed deadline for comments as discussed is 8 August. Regards, Mohamed On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> wrote: > I had sent this in the email about updated deadlines, but did not receive > any feedback about it: > > == Charter == > Originally I think we were hoping to have received all charter comments > roughly by Aug 1. Mohamed has made a proposal that we setup an explicit > mechanism to solicit community feedback on the charter and announce a > clear deadline for comments. I have not seen anyone oppose this proposal. > So my suggestion is that I work with the secretariat to get an email alias > (not a mailing list) up and running where community members can send > comments if they are not able to convey them via an ICG member (which I > still think is the preferred approach in general for charter comments). > Comments sent to this alias would be directly reflected on a web page that > we can setup. Assuming we can get this working by July 31, I suggest that > we announce an Aug 8 deadline for charter comments. This is not a lengthy > period of time but I think we had a general sense that it’s most important > to get the broad outlines of the charter right rather than spending weeks > on the details, so hopefully this will be sufficient. > ============= > > Alice has suggested that we could use a forum for this purpose, similar to > the ones listed here: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/>. We could publish an > announcement page that says that we are accepting public comments on the > ICG charter, what the deadline is, a link to the charter, a link to the > email alias to be used for comment submission, and a link to the forum > page where comments will appear. > > Should we do this? > > How long of a comment period should we have? (I would say 7-10 days max, > assuming we’re interested in major substantive comments and not lots of > detailed nits.) > > Should we give any guidance about what kind of feedback we’re looking for? > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >

1 0

Mailing list behaviour
by Patrik Fältström Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

All, Although we are an open process, I would like to discourage cc:ing *this* list on other mailing lists, for example the ones where communities do discuss their respective proposals that ultimately might end up on our table. Those proposals should later be submitted to us via some contact mechanism that is to be defined. This so that we can clearly know and understand what feedback we really have got, that can be included in the various summaries we create, and conclusions we draw from the coordination. Yes, people will, and have, cc:ed this list. In one case the posting was rejected but forwarded to this list. I think that is wrong, and that we when we remember should remove this list when we respond to threads where this list has been added. I want to use this list for our internal discussions and processes. Am I completely off? Patrik

6 6

Results of chair structure poll
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 4, 2014

Aug. 4, 2014

I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6> and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants responded to the poll (out of 30).* There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll: One chair with one alternate (“1+1”) Two co-chairs (“2”) One chair with two alternates (“1+2”) Three co-chairs (“3”) There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for (1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2). The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions, for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could see. The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each. Most respondents could live with all four options. So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit of compromise: We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial (most everyone can live with it). My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it, hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week. Alissa * One member of the community also responded.

18 24

ICG Secretariat
by Adiel Akplogan Aug. 3, 2014

Aug. 3, 2014

Dear all, I have volunteered in London to takeover the issue on ICG Secretariat. Please see attached a document for input and comment where are try to define some criteria and framework for the secretariat function. I have suggested that we have the ToR published by the first week of August, so we will need to finalise this document by the end of next week (31/07/2014). Thanks. - a.

12 15

Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat
by Joseph Alhadeff Aug. 2, 2014

Aug. 2, 2014

I think the independence you refer to is just independence from ICANN with sole instruction from and reporting to us... we were developing criteria for the secretariat in advance of filling the position. There was also the suggestion that existing staff being completely dedicated or seconded to us with no ICANN reporting during the engagement might also meet those needs.... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [Martin.Boyle(a)nominet.org.uk] Received: Friday, 01 Aug 2014, 12:09PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [jjs(a)dyalog.net] joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com] CC: internal-cg(a)icann.org [internal-cg(a)icann.org] Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Sorry, I'm not really sure... I've a couple of issues with the paper. I think that we actually have two parallel drafts based on Adiel's original - one commented on by Manal and Paul and the other by Narelle and Patrik - so I'd like to be clear about which of the two we are taking as v02 for approval. Going through the papers, I see that (section 2) we refer to "an independent organisation (not ICANN)" without identifying who that should be. Currently I do not see any clearly independent organisation, but I do think we need to nail this before going out with a call for proposals. Second point, as I read the text I am left feeling that we have merged what is currently two separate issues - the secretariat (performed by Sam Dickenson at the first meeting) and the support team from ICANN which looked after logistics etc as in "Arrange face to face meeting's venue along with related logistics; Arrange ICG members’ travels, as and when required "). Frankly I do not see the administrative role as being particularly sensitive. Can we be clear that the role is not about the administration functions, which can remain with the current support team in ICANN? Third (and Manal alludes to this), we cannot assume that an appointment on 31 August will allow the new secretariat to be in Istanbul for the first meeting (and preferably be in town for the discussions on the transition that will take place during the week: do we need a fall-back plan for the second face-to-face meeting? There is reference to linguistic ability (in a comment from Manal and a rather more detailed proposal from Narelle. While I recognise the importance of language diversity, I wonder whether this is a realistic expectation to include in a rfp. The experience of working in a multicultural and multilingual environment is probably the key criterion to cover this. A rather more important criterion is an understanding of the environment in which we are working - the different bits of the IANA functions and the communities which depend on them. I'm not talking experts, but about having a general overview and a reasonable understanding of the important issues from the different sides would allow the secretariat to hit the ground running. Sorry for the late intervention, but I hope this helps us close off this issue. Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: 01 August 2014 15:57 To: joseph alhadeff Cc: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat This looks complete now. Agreed. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> À: internal-cg(a)icann.org Envoyé: Vendredi 1 Août 2014 13:00:06 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Secretariat Perhaps the following phrasing would be more appropriately constraining: The role of the secretariat is strictly limited to the functions that support the ICG as described above. Nothing in this decription of functions should be read beyond its plain english meaning and the secretariat is not clothed with any authority to speak on behalf of the ICG to third parties or the press, to develop independent positions or to draw conclusions from inputs or actions of the ICG. Best- Joe On 8/1/2014 6:45 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Agreed. Very important. > >> -----Original Message----- >> This version should be further enhanced by explicitly listing *non* tasks: >> >> "It is not the task of the secretary to draw conclusions from inputs >> or actions of the ICG." >> >> "It is not the task of the secretary to interpret or explain actions >> of the ICG for third parties, particularly the press." >> >> and >> >> "Part of the task of summarising is to maintain an archive of the >> summarised material that is easily accessible and referenced >> appropriately from the summaries." >> >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) >> >> iQIVAwUBU9tZrdDY5Emqa716AQKB8A//U6hDvWtdo+QJ8EON1PEXwe15RpjuK9 >> 9f >> 4kgRu8C2iyeQXokP1pFnqzJN9/ARBg8Z31/QWB11rVKM6cEwEMrznwp8YKrP0E2 >> T >> V3DgqSAqw0K6QRW8peCwDmpiziXwzDb95/CtOKIdo/3LiXVV+/mMULeJJjvfivBi >> 6Lh6MxSX3is1nSFUt8jc2JmK18VWGvawDtGHpJgUw2ELFIBFkcNYIrAd3qCBz/UI >> VTQOi8mZOOSRTXzPmIJ/uimdBny2Yx9OUmSSRWtbL9jMq3VK7TzFEDstr+dsIJ5W >> 5GZc4jJ9EJoZ9fcsW7jHXkgWF7KgLmk/Uu59beuIoISbT970TQ6aGKIZIeCmEKBh >> DVuLu1NdOS/+1n1oIJbTRkwzEQUP7D8GoZzOQ/uA2jKV+5HpVLH2KSSggFc3KsNq >> mqcJRYllzAFGCrdgYnLCSVslCsPdVqScztl1mi7NWFopR2GZXAMR6QCgud1rDybz >> L+GdlbJZ1Je2gqBBtlJWB62xlJpMRCgV05E0nBI40c7xXoF8gHOpgA4LmFNUyJCk >> moVVETGGtYfrKWG/R4AeIDv0Yefzy1gGO0MDA7+aomw/C/qJ1SqT6fz6m7FYavH >> M >> SZwBbEew0tOAH+Ey+8I3fj/RnG/fRu9CV3RmQ4vrQMYZCdkbvD93bV8GFkei/MtV >> kaxMS8NgZcY= >> =gTwt >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

4 4

Re: [Internal-cg] [IANAxfer] [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
by Alissa Cooper Aug. 2, 2014

Aug. 2, 2014

Perhaps the problem here is that the viable path for participation of any interested party is evident to some but not to others. I’m wondering if a clarification would help. The thrust of my understanding of what the ICG has proposed for a process going forward is explained below. There will be, at a minimum, three sets of processes for developing components of the transition proposal: (1) An IETF process for developing the protocol parameters component. As with all IETF processes, it is open to anyone with an email address. No one is prevented from participating. If people need help understanding how to participate, the IETF ICG appointees (as well as other experienced IETF participants) are here to help. The process uses well established mechanisms for discussion and consensus-building that have been used to successfully craft thousands of documents over the years. (2) RIR processes for developing the numbers component. My expectation (which I’m sure will be corrected if wrong) is that these processes will also be open to anyone who wants to participate. And again if people need help understanding how, there are folks who are committed to providing that help. (3) A CCWG process for developing the names component. Again I think the only way this will work is if anyone is permitted to participate, and I haven’t seen any indication that participation will be somehow restricted. Unlike the other two components, this process is perhaps more novel — but certainly not more novel than any conceivable alternative process the ICG could run. If we have three sets of open processes where anyone can participate, where work and attention can be efficiently divided so as to develop focused proposals, where the ICG makes it a priority to ensure that coordination happens so that areas of overlap get addressed within the appropriate communities, and where tried-and-trusted discussion and consensus processes can be leveraged, how is it possible than an arbitrary group of 30 people in the ICG running a single centralized process created de novo for this purpose would produce a result that has broader support and better reflects the specific oversight/accountability needs of the various IANA functions? Alissa On 8/1/14, 4:47 PM, "Tamer Rizk" <trizk(a)inficron.com> wrote: > >Richard is spot on. The reason why many of us have had to curtail our >feedback is that a viable path for our comments to be reflected in the >output of this process is not evident. If we desire an outcome that is >representative of a diverse set of stakeholder interests, then the ICG >should function to publicly aggregate input from those sources, merge >them into discrete, topic based proposals for review by the wider >community, and offer a transparent mechanism by which to gauge both >external and internal consensus. Otherwise, if the coordination group is >interested in drafting a proposal of its own accord, but would >appreciate external feedback for internal deliberation, please refer to >the previous suggestions herein. > >Richard Hill wrote: >> Please see below. >> >> Thanks and best, >> Richard >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@frobbit.se] >>> Sent: vendredi, 1. aout 2014 15:57 >>> To: rhill(a)hill-a.ch >>> Cc: Eliot Lear; Avri Doria; ianatransition(a)icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> I am proposing that the ICG assemble and summarize, and the >>> summary could well include a satement to the effect that >>> proposals X, Y, and Z are consistent with, and accomodated, in >>> consolidated proposal A, which can therefore be said to be a >>> consensus proposal. >>> >>> Why would not parties first talk with each other and merge their >>> respective proposals before sending it to the ICG? >> >> Of course they should. But what is the role of the ICG if all the >> coordination is done outside ICG? >> >>> >>> What you propose is for me not bottom up, but an informed top >>> down process with consultations. >> >> Hunh? What I propose is the usual process. People make inputs, an >>editor >> collates them and produces a consolidated draft. People comment on the >> draft. The editor produces a new draft, etc. >> >> If some of the stakeholders work together to agree a common proposal, >>why >> not. But if nothing else is acceptable, then I don't call that "bottom >>up", >> I call that "pre-cooked deal". >> >>> >>> Not good enough for me. >>> >>>> The ICG would then put that assembled proposal out for comment, >>> as you say, and if they got it right, nobody would object to it. >>> >>> Saying no one would object to a proposal is of course something >>> that will never happen. You know that as well as I do. >> >> There will surely be more objections at the end if people are >>discouraged >> from sending inputs and if their comments are not reflected in the >>output in >> some way (which may be an explanation of why the input was not >>included). >> >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianatransition mailing list >> ianatransition(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> >_______________________________________________ >IANAxfer mailing list >IANAxfer(a)elists.isoc.org >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Reminder - Travel & Visas- ICG Mtg #2
by Alice Jansen Aug. 1, 2014

Aug. 1, 2014

Dear ICG Members, Should you need travel support to attend the ICG Mtg #2 (6 September), this is to kindly remind you to please return the attached travel request form to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August – COB. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014). ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. May we also invite you to go to https://www.evisa.gov.tr/en/ for visa-related information. Thanks - Best regards Alice From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:57 PM To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>" <internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ - ICG Mtg #2 - Travel & RP Dear ICG Members, As announced by Alissa, the ICG in-person meeting # 2 will take place on: ** Saturday, 6 September 2014** At the Grand Hyatt<http://istanbul.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html> in Istanbul Meeting room: Tyana 1&2 09:00-17:30 EEST – 06:00-14:30 UTC See timezone conversion at: http://tinyurl.com/qz5zjh3 Remote participation (RP) features will be available for ICG members who are not in a position to attend the meeting in person. Remote Participation & Interpreting The global multistakeholder community will be able to follow your exchanges through the virtual meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. Coordination Group Members participating remotely in the meeting should join the adobe connect room to view any material being displayed in the meeting room. The dial-in bridge details will be sent to you in a separate email (off list). Please note that we will have interpreting services at the meeting. Links to the respective languages are available below: * English - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-en.m3u * French - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-fr.m3u * Spanish - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-es.m3u * Chinese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-zh.m3u * Russian - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ru.m3u * Arabic - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-ar.m3u * Portuguese - http://stream.icann.org:8000/icg-pt.m3u The community will be also be able to follow the real time transcript (RTT) at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=06Sep2014icg (also available in the virtual meeting room). Travel Support As indicated in the process published on 6 June 2014, meal and lodging costs for ICG members to participate in ICG meetings will be covered by ICANN, upon request and in accordance with ICANN's community travel support guidelines<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en>. Supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (5-7 September 2014) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. Should you need travel support to attend this meeting, please inform ICANN staff as soon as possible and no later than Tuesday, 5 August – COB. ICANN staff will require your duly completed travel support request form (attached) to process your request – kindly ensure to return it to cgtravel(a)icann.org<mailto:cgtravel@icann.org> within the timeframe identified above. Note that delays in providing your information will not guarantee travel support. Should you have already made travel arrangements to attend the IGF meeting in Istanbul, please inform staff (off list) whether you need travel support to extend your stay. Thank you - Best regards, Alice

1 0