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

[Stephanie E Perrin]

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.

Kind regards

Stephanie Perrin

On 2020-06-13 1:25 p.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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/20200615/ebfe13af/attachment.htm>