Draft Proposal for Phased Return to Face-to-Face Meetings

Sat Jun 13 12:25:59 EEST 2020

Hi all,

A few thoughts:

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?

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.

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 *unwilling *to travel/attend a public meeting vs people who are
*unable *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.

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.

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.

Have a nice day,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:45 AM Stephanie E Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> NCSG Chair
> On 2020-06-12 8:51 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> hi all,
>
> 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
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-06-11-en.
> You can share your comments and feedback on this thread.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
>
>
> Dear SOAC Chairs and Vice-Chairs:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thank you again for your time and participation on these calls and
> Roundtables, both physical and virtual.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David A. Olive
> Senior Vice President
>
> Policy Development Support
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200613/8740f632/attachment.htm>