<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Hi All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Remote discussion session formatting has to be studied well, because the current style is not providing any engaging with the attendees. Many studies have been conducted in the educational sector, even there are educational conferences that are solely held remotely. I've been away from that sector to list their names. Having an external consultant with experts in this area would help.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">-I couldn't see any consideration to the health insurance coverage to those who are willing to go F2F even for regional meetings.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Scheduling virtual meetings and webinars is also an issue, because people are overwhelmed with online meetings not necessarily related to ICANN and having a balance between actual and virtual life.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Best</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Nadira</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:33 PM Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca">lanfran@yorku.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><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><font color="#990000">Colleagues, <br><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
</font></font></font></font></font></font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">In the context of returning to face-to-face ICANN meetings Stephanie
has suggested that meetings at a distance, with regional hubs, may not be
optimal. I would like to raise an argument in favor of regional hubs, especially
regional hubs that exist both before and after ICANN scheduled meetings. </font></p><font color="#990000">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">I will not expand on the argument in this short comment but
here is the gist of my support for regional hubs. </font></p><font color="#990000">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">The context in which there are DNS issues and ICANN
engagement issues varies from region to region and it would be beneficial for
regional assemblies that could discuss DNS issues and strategies for greater,
broader, and better context-sensitive local non-profit and civil society engagement in ICANN issues. It would also provide a venue for dialogue on related regional Internet ecosystem issues. Such dialogue would also give
a deeper base to the positions taken by those who do attend the face-to-face
meetings, bringing in what would almost amount to a federated responsibility and
accountability, based on the positions taken by regional hubs. </font></p><font color="#990000">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">Since fully representative attendance at ICANN literal
meetings is not likely in the near future, if ever at all, support for regional
hubs may be a win for ICANN engagement and a win for engagement around regional
issues.</font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000"> Think about it.</font></p><font color="#990000">
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#990000">Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/NCSG</font></p>
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"></font></font></font></font></font><br><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px">---- Original Message ----<br><b>From</b>: Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@MAIL.UTORONTO.CA</a>><br><b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br><b>Sent</b>: Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 8:26 AM<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: Draft Proposal for Phased Return to Face-to-Face Meetings<br><br>
<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><br></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Calibri"></font> </p></div></div></div></div>