<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>A few thoughts:</div><div><br></div>I think the regional model is not a bad idea on paper, but when it comes to public meetings, I am having a hard time figuring out the problem it solves, besides that of limitations on the size of indoor gatherings imposed by public authorities. And even then, given that we can expect a myriad rules on the matter from each and every public health authority, how feasible would it be to "plan" regionally-split public meetings?<div><br></div><div>Split meetings for smaller WGs, review teams, EPDP, etc., can probably be handled in a had-hoc manner given the constraints and situation of individual participants. And I can think that in such cases, it could work.</div><div><br></div><div>Generally, it's not clear to me that actual issues have been identified, besides the general feeling that the community wants more clarity on what's going to happen. I do not feel that the questions we have received from ICANN Org would allow them to actually identify the variety and category of issues members of the community may be foreseeably facing, now and in the future. There is a major difference in providing solutions for people who are <i>unwilling </i>to travel/attend a public meeting vs people who are <i>unable </i>to travel/attend a public meeting. And right now I have no idea how many people may be facing a given issue, and how does this map into stakeholder groups, SO/ACs, etc. And from what I read, I don't feel that Org knows either. </div><div><br></div><div>Take the "concern" that some participants may have more limited financial means, in the current circumstances or generally. Providing a regional hub (according to what regionalization scheme also? ICANN's own or something else?) as a solution assumes a certain pattern of flight prices (which may or may not be true in various places around the world) and it assumes that participants are somewhat both unable and unwilling to travel further, rather than just unable. If money only is the issue, then improving travel support is the solution, not splitting meetings into regions.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>As for hybrid in the sense of both in person and remote, I suppose that's what we've been having for a while now, and yes there needs to be improvements as to how things are done. Remote participation needs to be engaging; there's plenty of people around who've been thinking about that, inside and outside of ICANN. Making remote participation engaging has become somewhat of a widespread problem! If we have people among us (NCSG) who have specific knowledge on that, I think it would be great if they could come forward. But it's also Org's duty to do its homework and look into that. </div><div><br></div><div>Have a nice day,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:45 AM Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Thanks for forwarding Rafik! Interesting, but a bit sketchy on
details. I foresee travel problems for a long time, and would
think that regional hubs could achieve better
participation....seems to be included in the hybrid model, but
without costed models we really can't tell how much is feasible.
I think it would be very helpful if members could think about what
their own situations are likely to be in 6months to a year, and
where they would be willing or able to travel to. Borders will
definitely still be barred to some regions, I am betting, and we
need to ensure that our global membership is not
disproportionately impacted. <br>
</p>
<p>Please note that the fall meeting will be virtual again, and we
need to think hard about how to enliven and enrich that meeting,
as it is the annual general meeting and normally a big one. We
should tune in to that June 25 plenary session, where these issues
will be discussed.</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin</p>
<p>NCSG Chair<br>
</p>
<div>On 2020-06-12 8:51 p.m., Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please find attached draft proposal on how to return to
face to face meetings on phases from ICANN, put for review and
input. It was already decided that ICANN69 will also be a
virtual meeting <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-06-11-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-06-11-en</a>.</div>
<div>You can share your comments and feedback on this thread.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded
message ---------<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Dear SOAC
Chairs and Vice-Chairs:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">An action item
from your 18 May call with Goran, where you
discussed the idea of a phased return to large
face-to-face meetings, was for ICANN Org to prepare
a draft of what such an approach might look like. I
am pleased to attach a draft proposal that we
believe is feasible and prudent approach.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Goran and I
hope that you will share the draft with your
community groups as we are eager to hear the
community’s views and feedback on what we have
described in the paper. Goran will also touch on the
various elements outlined in the draft approach
during the third ICANN68 plenary session scheduled
for 25 June, on Advancing Policy Work in the Current
Environment. The Community can provide some
initial comments at that session and we will follow
up with further conversations during our next
Planning Meeting for ICANN69.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">I will be
sending you a separate email about the third ICANN68
plenary session scheduled for 25 June, on Advancing
Policy Work in the Current Environment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">We hope to hear
your and your communities' views after you have had
a chance to discuss the draft. We will be happy to
organize a call after ICANN68 for this purpose.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Thank you again
for your time and participation on these calls and
Roundtables, both physical and virtual.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">David</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">David A.
Olive<br>
Senior Vice President</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Policy
Development Support</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Washington,
D.C.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>