[PC-NCSG] Intersessional

[Tapani Tarvainen]

All,

We really should try to make a decision amongst ourselves before next
Tuesday. Things won't progress if we leave it until then and fight
with each other as CSG and staff look at us wondering if we can ever
decide anything.

No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.

I tend to agree with Ed and Matt, for reasons Ed gave (adding that
August is election time for council and NCSG), and CSG has also
indicated they'd be willing to accept February.

As far as I can tell, the main points against it are:

* Too much total travel time. That is definitely true but can't be
helped now, attaching the intersessional to either Copenhagen or
Johannesburg is not going to happen, and there's no difference in
total travel time whether we meet in February, April or August.

* Too little time to prepare. Given that we've had all year to prepare
but haven't gotten any closer, I don't expect more time would help -
people simply won't start doing much until the meeting is closer
anyway, and two months really should be enough.

* Visa problems. As far as I can see, they would not get any easier
later, more likely worse as the time between meetings will be shorter.
And it may be possible to apply for visa to Denmark and Iceland at the
same time (Denmark handles Iceland visas applications in many places),
while that definitely doesn't isn't the case with South Africa.

* Scheduling conflicts. Again, mid-February seems to be the best
compromise, April and August are much busier for most people.
(For my part I could manage any of them. The only alternative I
probably could not make is tacked on to Copenhagen, but ISPs already
vetoed that anyway.)

* Weather and climate. Sure, Reykjavik as well as more or less any
realistic alternative would be nicer in April or August, but -
seriously? It's not like we were planning to hold meetings outdoors.

So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.

Have I missed or misunderstood something?

Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?

Tapani

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:47:24PM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> + 1 Ed
> 
> The Feb timeframe makes most sense.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> On 22/11/2016 09:19, Edward Morris 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
> 
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987