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

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Hi Steph (and Sam)

Your points are good, but what I'm putting forward here is the necessity of
understanding what the actual issues are and how the solutions we think
about help us move forward on those issues.

Visas, flight durations, and flight costs (and also lack of engagement on
the long term) are all issues... and regional public meetings are a
solution to those issues in specific circumstances only, not accross the
board.

There are plenty of examples around the world of restrictive visa policies
within a same region. Also, flight costs/duration may not make sense in
large countries, for example. I can already imagine the absurdity of a
supported travel living on the US/Canada east coast being flown by ICANN to
Vancouver at a same or greater price because that is the "regional meeting"
versus attending the European meeting in London. Besides, reasonably
fast/efficient travel other than by plane is possible, and potentially
safer in the current circumstances, only in certain parts of the world.

The way I see it, confined spaces are, and will be, a health concern, may
they be planes or conference centers. So people who cannot or do not want
to fly *at all - * or attend any in-person conference, for that matter -
should have an alternative; a meaningful online experience.

In a context where flying is an option, as well as conferencing in person,
people who can/want to fly but do not have the means, because of the
circumstances, should at least be supported at the same level as they were
before the epidemic. And there's even a case for more support, especially
for us, given that many of our non-supported travelers actually travel on
their own money. Others may also be facing travel budget cuts from their
organizations. So why not buff the transportation aspect of travel support
(either increasing support of already supported travels, and/or broadening
the base and supporting more travelers)? That seems to me to be the
straightforward solution, for that problem. It might even be cheaper than
setting up regional meetings - I can't remember the numbers in this years
financial doc, but I'm quite sure it's something that is at least worth
discussing.

So we are left with everything in between; people who cannot or do not want
to fly too long, may that be for health reasons, or both health and money
reasons (if its just money, then see above) They might indeed benefit from
a regional format, given the "right" circumstances, in the "right"
region...

And unsurprisingly in all that, I believe those who would get actual
benefits from regional meetings - shorter and cheaper flights, maybe an
easier time with visas - are those who already have those benefits anyway,
and who also have, in general, the financial means to fund their travels -
read Europeans, and to some extent N. Americans and some part of E.
Asia/Pacific (I insist on the "in general"). I think it's important to be
conscious of that too, and make sure we listen (and reach out if need be)
to those we are supposed to be "helping" with those plans before designing
them.

So I guess I'm not entirely against the idea, but I'm not convinced that we
have either identified correctly all our problems (and their extent,) nor
that a regional meeting would be a solution for those we have, or we
believe may have.

Nadira: about your point on health insurance, I presume Org deems it too
costly to insure even the supported participants... I have no idea how
valid such an argument would be from a financial perspective, but that's
something we could inquire upon if it has not been done before.

Have a nice day,


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:23 AM Stephanie E Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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> 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/20200615/0d7adb8e/attachment.htm>