[NCSG-PC] one on one with Goran

[Michael J. Oghia]

I couldn't agree more with everything Nick said!

Best,
-Michael



On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:16 PM Nick Shorey <lists at nickshorey.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Re Climate Change:
>
> I agree with the caution and objectivity expressed by both Ayden and
> Michael.
>
> Before taking this to the ICANN community, I recommend we carefully
> consider what the specific ‘ask’ is, as there could be unintended
> consequences of an undercooked policy position which may negatively impact
> this community to a disproportionate extent.
>
> On reducing the environmental impact of ICANN and the IG community
> engagement therein, some of my early thoughts on what shape such a position
> could take include:
>
> *- Consolidated logistical planning to ensure the minimum number of
> individual trips necessary for the effective execution of ICANN’s
> operational and community events.*
>
> ICANN runs numerous events throughout the year across different regions.
> It might both more sustainable and environmentally friendly if these are
> more closely coordinated, enabling staff to block together activity and
> travel less.
>
> The Registries DNS symposium event could precede an one of the shorter
> ICANN meetings and take place at the same location perhaps, instead of
> being a standalone event involving many of the sample people. Could there
> be closer collaboration between organisers of ICANN, IETF, RIRs regarding
> event logistics that might be more sustainable for interested parties?
>
> And I use the word ‘*sustainable'* in as much of an economic sense as an
> environmental one. Where positive environmental action can be matched with
> a clear economic and cost-reduction benefit, the greater the likelihood of
> success.
>
> *- Maximising the utilisation of regional staff and resources for the
> delivery of outreach events*. Making sure that ICANN doesn’t freight
> unnecessary hardware or fly unnecessary staff to meetings / events, where
> the resources and personnel can be supported locally.
>
> - *Prioritisation of environmentally friendly practices in the delivery
> of organisation functions.* Employing sustainable office practices as
> previously detailed by Michael)
>
> *- All ICANN flights must include payment of carbon-offsetting taxes. *Making
> it formal policy that ICANN does not waiver payment of these fees.
>
>
> These ideas of course require additional input to help bring into focus,
> but hopefully might begin to form the shape of policy requests which are
> both achievable, measurable, and at the same time avoid any unintended
> consequences for participation.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nick
>
> Nick Shorey
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <lists at nickshorey.com>
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
>
>
>
> On 2 Oct 2019, at 18:20, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
> You raise a good point and a great question. See my reply in-line.
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:02 PM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> RE: Climate Change
>>
>> I wonder if this is not a discussion better suited to the public forum,
>> perhaps? Or if it could take the form of a letter, jointly signed by the
>> Chair of the NCSG and its constituency leaders and the Commercial
>> Stakeholder Group's leadership? We could at least explore their interest
>> here in working on something jointly -- rather than present this as
>> something only we care deeply about, which I believe is the current
>> impression ICANN Org might have.
>>
>
> I like the letter idea because that would do exactly what Goran has said
> we need to do: show community support for these efforts.
>
>
>
>> But before we go down that path, there is one question I suspect we will
>> face, and I would like to know what our answer would be. I am being
>> provocative here, however I would like to know our position if someone
>> said, say, the following:
>>
>> *There are many things our world desperately needs, including a
>> coordinated international response to climate change. But I am not sure
>> there is much that ICANN Org can do on this front that would make a
>> difference. Action on climate change cannot realistically be spread equally
>> across all industries.*
>>
>> Again, I am being provocative, but I think we need to have a clear series
>> of asks -- because the only proposal on the table that I have seen is to
>> stop funding the travel of community members to ICANN meetings (not to stop
>> the face to face meetings). This would disproportionately impact civil
>> society's participation at ICANN, as our friends in industry can easily
>> expense their travel costs.
>>
>
> Agreed with you here, this is very reasonable. My response to this would
> be that it's about being responsible as a community and organisation for
> our carbon footprint – essentially being accountable for the emissions and
> waste we produce. Even if "action on climate change cannot realistically be
> spread equally across all industries," that does not mean we shouldn't do
> our part.
>
> We could formulate this in a much more structured, fact-supported, and
> coherent way that also connects to existing ICANN principles, but this is
> my initial thought. Does anyone else have something to add that I may have
> egregiously overlooked?
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191004/074d250b/attachment.htm>