<div dir="ltr">Hi Steph (and Sam)<div><br></div><div>Your points are good, but what I'm putting forward here is the necessity of understanding what the actual issues are and how the solutions we think about help us move forward on those issues. </div><div><br></div><div>Visas, flight durations, and flight costs (and also lack of engagement on the long term) are all issues... and regional public meetings are a solution to those issues in specific circumstances only, not accross the board.</div><div><br></div><div>There are plenty of examples around the world of restrictive visa policies within a same region. Also, flight costs/duration may not make sense in large countries, for example. I can already imagine the absurdity of a supported travel living on the US/Canada east coast being flown by ICANN to Vancouver at a same or greater price because that is the "regional meeting" versus attending the European meeting in London. Besides, reasonably fast/efficient travel other than by plane is possible, and potentially safer in the current circumstances, only in certain parts of the world. </div><div><br></div><div>The way I see it, confined spaces are, and will be, a health concern, may they be planes or conference centers. So people who cannot or do not want to fly <i>at all - </i> or attend any in-person conference, for that matter - should have an alternative; a meaningful online experience. </div><div><br></div><div>In a context where flying is an option, as well as conferencing in person, people who can/want to fly but do not have the means, because of the circumstances, should at least be supported at the same level as they were before the epidemic. And there's even a case for more support, especially for us, given that many of our non-supported travelers actually travel on their own money. Others may also be facing travel budget cuts from their organizations. So why not buff the transportation aspect of travel support (either increasing support of already supported travels, and/or broadening the base and supporting more travelers)? That seems to me to be the straightforward solution, for that problem. It might even be cheaper than setting up regional meetings - I can't remember the numbers in this years financial doc, but I'm quite sure it's something that is at least worth discussing.</div><div><br></div><div>So we are left with everything in between; people who cannot or do not want to fly too long, may that be for health reasons, or both health and money reasons (if its just money, then see above) They might indeed benefit from a regional format, given the "right" circumstances, in the "right" region... </div><div><br></div><div>And unsurprisingly in all that, I believe those who would get actual benefits from regional meetings - shorter and cheaper flights, maybe an easier time with visas - are those who already have those benefits anyway, and who also have, in general, the financial means to fund their travels - read Europeans, and to some extent N. Americans and some part of E. Asia/Pacific (I insist on the "in general"). I think it's important to be conscious of that too, and make sure we listen (and reach out if need be) to those we are supposed to be "helping" with those plans before designing them. </div><div><br></div><div>So I guess I'm not entirely against the idea, but I'm not convinced that we have either identified correctly all our problems (and their extent,) nor that a regional meeting would be a solution for those we have, or we believe may have. </div><div><br></div><div>Nadira: about your point on health insurance, I presume Org deems it too costly to insure even the supported participants... I have no idea how valid such an argument would be from a financial perspective, but that's something we could inquire upon if it has not been done before. </div><div><br></div><div>Have a nice day,</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:23 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>I agree with most of your thoughts on this Raphael. My worry is
that when we start returning to face to face meetings, our members
in some countries will have even more problems trying to get visas
than they have had before. I also think there will be reluctance,
regardless of any safety precautions, to get on 12-18 hour
flights. So local travel might be more attractive for a number of
reasons, and if we invested the money in decent connectivity, we
could have a linked meeting. Finally, I wonder what ICANN is
willing to spend on travel....flights are going to be more
expensive, and many airlines are going to be out of business, so
ICANN travel may have severe restrictions. Regional hubs are not
optimal, but we are not living in optimal times for face to face
conferences.</p>
<p>Kind regards</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div>On 2020-06-13 1:25 p.m., Raphael
Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>