ICANN Meetings Discussion
=========================
Paul Levins introduced this topic on the agenda by reminding the Board
that at the New Delhi meeting the Board had asked staff to deliver on
three outcomes in the meetings area: first, to make an early public
notification of the Paris meeting and get the meeting schedule out
earlier than usual; second, decide upon the location of the ICANN
meeting from November 2-7, 2009 to be held in Africa; and third, prepare
a paper on meeting management and logistics that would promote a
discussion about reform.
Paul advised that this paper and the meetings related item to follow
delivered on these requests. This paper regarding the meetings describes
moving from three to two ICANN meetings a year and to a hub arrangement.
Paul clarified that the hub locations are to be determined in each of
the five regions. The Chair asked if the proposals in the paper would go
out for public comment. Paul Levins confirmed that it would be published
for public comment.
Bruce Tonkin asked if the main motivation for moving from three to two
meetings per year was to reduce costs. Paul Levins said that in part
this was the case, but it was mainly about reform to the meetings
process and the investment of time and anecdotal information received
from the community that up to 20 days per year is a big investment in
community time in meeting time, especially for a volunteer community
many of whom had to rely upon their place of employment to support them.
Bruce Tonkin was concerned that the savings in time and money achieved
by going from three to two meetings per year may be diminished if other
meetings had to be planned to compensate for the loss of the third
meeting. For example it would not be desirable to have, say, ten smaller
meetings replace a single larger meeting. Paul Levins noted that concern
and said the paper did not countenance more regional meetings but the
same number as presently held.
Janis Karklins advised that for the GAC, the diminishing number of
face-to-face meetings would result in a slow down in the work. The GAC
is already finds the workload difficult to accommodate in three meetings
and would need to discuss how to deal with the situation. It may need
another face-to-face meeting in addition to the two regular meetings.
The Chair advised that any group that needs to meet can do so, but asked
Janis to expand upon the problems in doing that for the GAC. Janis
advised that GAC rely on ICANN support services during meetings, and
they have no physical resources and will need ICANN's support. This may
have expenditure implications. Janis Karklins said he was not formally
asking for more than three meetings, but simply noting that meeting only
twice a year will not allow the GAC to keep up with expectations. The
Chair noted that the GAC would want staffing support for a third
meeting. Bruce Tonkin considered that not only the GAC, but also the
GNSO and ALAC amongst others may want additional meetings.
Paul Twomey suggested that the paper should also include an
effectiveness quotient of the value in having inter-sessionals to drive
through work. Bruce Tonkin noted that the budget might not change. The
Chair agreed that there should be a paragraph concerning inter-sessional
meetings included in the paper.
Steve Goldstein noted that the former Board Meetings Committee had
discussed the idea of hubs and that the feature of a hub is that it
would be used often. He considered that if there were five in rotation,
there would not be any advantage from using a facility once every five
years, and suggested using one hub. Paul Levins provided clarification
on the hubs, noting that while there are some cost efficiencies, there
are higher savings in returning to one location, it is also about the
convenience and access of not having to go through two or three stops to
get to a location.
Harald Alvestrand shared Steve's concerns about the hubs saying he would
want clarification of how this would work before it was presented to the
community for input and additionally suggested that it is important
having meetings in all five regions. The Chair asked Paul Levins to add
that concept as an option.
The Chair considered that the paper is designed to get people to think
about meeting regularity generally and that there should be full
consultation.
Janis Karklins considered if the one of the concerns is budgetary
constraint it would be useful to have a comparison of three meetings
versus two per year as well as expected requests for others, some
general idea of budget should also be provided to the Board. The Chair
agreed that financial information would be useful, including comparative
costs. Paul Levins noted that the object of this was about meeting
reform and discussion around meetings and less budgetary concern. Bruce
Tonkin noted that the cost of meetings has been growing and from a Board
governance sense we need to be aware of this.
The Chair asked Paul Levins to circulate the paper back to board for
further consideration before distribution to the community. The Chair
considered that it would be good to have this out and discussed at the
Paris meeting.