RE: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Donna:

I'm in agreement that the 4-day B meeting is intended to be one that "would be 
possible in those regions because they would not require all the bells and 
whistles of a normal meeting, and in theory, not as many people would attend".

However, at least in 2016, the full-length A meeting in Marrakech is likely to 
be subject to lower attendance because of travel costs and security concerns 
(this opinion based on what I've heard from many individuals/organizations that 
usually attend ICANN meetings). Further, the 2016 B meeting, had it been held 
in Panama City absent the Zika Virus-caused cancelation, would likely have 
attracted a large turnout due to the fact that many usual attendees are 
planning to skip Marrakech, and Panama City was perceived as an attractive and 
relatively easy to reach destination (and one that certainly has the hotel 
capacity to accommodate a large turnout). Whether that will hold true for the 
relocated site remains to be seen, although the first factor (lower turnout in 
Marrakech) will still apply.

I'm not questioning the new meeting strategy - let's experience it and then 
form an opinion - just observing that there may be a gap between ICANN's intent 
and actual real world experience.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:12 AM
To: Heather Forrest
Cc: Edward Morris; James M. Bladel; Volker Greimann; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated

Hi Heather

You are correct that Meeting B is to be WG/policy focused. However, one of the 
challenges for the Meeting Strategy Working Group was how to continue outreach 
and regional rotation through locations that do not have the capacity to host a 
full-blown ICANN meeting -- this is particularly challenging in Africa and LAC 
regions.

The conclusion we arrived at is that the WG/policy meetings would be possible 
in those regions because they would not require all the bells and whistles of a 
normal meeting, and in theory, not as many people would attend.

So, while the solution seems counter-intuitive, it seemed a viable solution 
that allows for the continued rotation of meetings through the ICANN regions, 
which was identified as a high priority by the MSWG.

Donna
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Colleagues,



On a personal level I agree with Ed's suggestion re regional hubs. Re Panama, I 
was facing the prospect of more time in the air between Tasmania and Panama 
than on the ground at the meeting.



At the same time, I'm always willing to travel the huge distance for f2f 
meetings because I find it invaluable to have everyone in the same room at one 
time and not be reliant upon AC room queues. Plus, we all know how those video 
links into ICANN public forums from regional locations work (or not).....



Isn't meeting B our WG-focused meeting where we're all head down, locked in a 
room, trying to make real progress? If so, it likely doesn't suit the regional 
hub approach, much as the length the meeting and the faraway venue does.



Best wishes,



Heather

________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf 
of Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 3:17
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Volker Greimann; Austin, Donna; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated

A meeting with regional hubs for most with dispersed central meeting spots for 
Council and other like groups might be worth trying, particularly for B. Flying 
four days to attend a meeting for four days just does not make a lot of sense 
for many of us.

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Feb 2016, at 03:58, James M. Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Basically with Volker.  There's value in a face-to-face meeting, but ICANN can 
still do more to facilitate remote participation, especially for meetings (like 
the one upcoming) where attendance is projected to be lower.  And expanded use 
of remote hubs / satellite locations would be preferable to dialing in on your 
own....

Thanks-

J.



From: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 4:37
To: "Austin, Donna" 
<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, James Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated

Hi Donna,

I agree that ICANN should improve their capacity for virtual participation, 
however I feel that ultimately the ability to meet face to face and discuss on 
the side of the events is very important to a smooth operation of the meeting 
and cannot completely be replaced by remote participation. But having better 
virtual participation options as a choice would be helpful and a great 
improvement over the sometimes spotty phone bridge.

Holographic representation would be nice ;-)


Best,

Volker

Am 06.02.2016 um 00:29 schrieb Austin, Donna:

Maybe it's time for ICANN to experiment with a full virtual meeting, connecting 
hubs around the world.



The costs associated with having to change locations on a reasonably frequent 
basis are, I'm sure, not trivial. Not to mention an enormous strain on the Nick 
and his team.



From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Friday, 5 February 2016 3:04 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated



Thanks for the heads up Phil. Here's the statement from ICANN.



J.

Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.



Begin forwarded message:

From: David Olive <david.olive@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: February 5, 2016 at 16:53:47 CST
To: "soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN56 to be Relocated

Please see the recent announcement regarding ICANN 56:



**



https://meetings.icann.org/en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__meetings.icann.org_en&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=JMnm7gxzeRA3myMkHQfkjMuGK2fCOLF7QwZNjV5Ehpw&s=vYsWFLoraLmMBa3beRQhnVRwlY36Iv3LcsSPLCBPCSE&e=>/

ICANN56 to be Relocated

ICANN56, scheduled to be held in Panama in June 2016, will be moved to another 
location due to the severity of the Zika Virus outbreak in the Latin America 
region. A search is currently underway to identify an alternate location where 
the Zika Virus is not a concern. We look forward to returning to Panama for a 
future ICANN Meeting.



David A. Olive

Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul

Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212

Mobile:       + 1. 202.341.3611

Mobile:       +90.533.341.6550

Email:  david.olive@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:david.olive@xxxxxxxxx>

www.icann.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=JMnm7gxzeRA3myMkHQfkjMuGK2fCOLF7QwZNjV5Ehpw&s=5sBbbVkXKsxz5m_7IEeGFI8uos-WPXvD2vqvtIhZlro&e=>



_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_soac-2Dinfoalert&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=t_Le9tU2oBr-3_16ZuoOPT1uPb7CK8w2w1q1Z6PtWiE&s=ZOSJoRPVBWhkdt8WqVjrOekRtIj2c37z0XdA0QRvq10&e=>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.