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

[Nadira Alaraj]

Hi All,

-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.

-I couldn't see any consideration to the health insurance coverage to
those who are willing to go F2F even for regional meetings.

-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.

Best
Nadira


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:33 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> 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.
>
> I will not expand on the argument in this short comment but here is the
> gist of my support for regional hubs.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Think about it.
>
> Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/NCSG
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> *From*: Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Sent*: Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 8:26 AM
> *Subject*: Re: Draft Proposal for Phased Return to Face-to-Face Meetings
>
> 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
>
>

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200615/784d982b/attachment.htm>