[PC-NCSG] Intersessional

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Speaking for myself, I?ve never been able to make it to an intersessional meeting. This has mainly been because, by the time the meeting location is confirmed and CT start sending out emails to supported travelers, time is already too tight for me to apply for a visa. I don?t believe holding the meeting in the US or EU would make a difference in my case. Sometimes, applying for a Schengen is even more difficult and/or time-consuming than a US visa.

Not that the difference is terribly significant, but my guess is that if the intersessional is moved to so soon after Meeting A, the tight timeframe problem may be compounded for both myself, as well as the CT team. I also imagine that I would have to get visas for both Meeting A and the intersessional before I physically travel to Meeting A. Not sure if this is the case for others as well.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at TOAST.NET> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani,
> 
> 
>>> April-May option may also still be brought up.
>> 
>> Any opinions of that possibility?
> 
> That timing would not be good from a few perspectives.
> 
> 1. We already are giving ICANN 1-2 weeks, including travel, in March and June for regular ICANN meetings.  March, April / May and June? That's just too much too close for those of us with jobs and families. Heck, it's too much for unemployed people without families! We are volunteers, after all, not paid employees.
> 
> 2. On a more practical level, one of the few positive aspects of the intersession from my perspective has been that it allows us to organise ourselves. The January - February time period comes at the start of the year and follows some of our constituency elections and the stakeholder group appointment period. It has been useful to get our new EC's, as well
> as the SG PC,  together for the first time to plan things for the year ahead. Putting it in between meetings 1 and 2 of the year in months 4 or 5 is a lot less useful for internal coordination and planning purposes than the earlier meeting date.
> 
> 3. For this year, from a scheduling perspective,  it's horrible. The CCWG is scheduled to end in June. We will be under intense pressure to get our work done in the April through June periods. A week at an ICANN meeting will be a distraction from completing this important project, one that involves many of those who otherwise would be at the intersession. Those of us who are heavily involved in the CCWG would be hard pressed to attend an intersession at this new proposed time.
>> -
>> anybody now who'd see find it good or even acceptable?
> 
> Not really.
> 
>> 
>> Another point: if some of you would be interested in participating
>> in the planning process, meaning joining planning calls and emails,
>> please let me know. (Staff suggested 1-2 people per community group
>> would be welcome.)
>> 
> 
> I'm happy to help. If we're going to do this I'd like to try to help the meeting become more productive than it has been in past years.
> 
> 
> Ed Morris
> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg