[PC-NCSG] Intersessional

Wed Nov 23 11:00:29 EET 2016

Hi,

as I said polling would give more clarity about the position of everyone .
I will also to highlight that we are having now like in hyderabad several
meetings with CSG so we need to reconsider how that fits with the
intersessional and if we really need all these as matter of efficiency. for
example we could sort-out the procedural part of vice-chair election
basically by emails and having group of volunteers to draft.

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-23 17:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:

> Hi,
>
> Facts.
>
> I went on this call and heard a lot of "Poor me, there are visa problems"
> or "travel problems".
>
> Correct.
>
> And it really is not fair. I get it.
>
> Life generally is not fair.
>
> The only alternative discussed that would reduce visa and travel problems
> would be to make the South Africa meeting longer.
>
> Yet, that proposal would shoot down the entire meeting policy we just
> implemented.
>
> Meeting B. The short one. DOA.
>
> If that is the only option let's have no meeting at all. Adhering to the
> meeting policy, developed over time in a bottom up multi stakeholder
>  manner, is more important than an intercessional meeting; the process of
> adding to meeting B would invariably start a trend to making meeting B the
> same length as every other meeting. Once we do it ALAC would do it etc.
>
> That is opinion, not fact, but I think is a logical, reasoned one.
>
> For the record, I strongly support meeting B. I would like the concept to
> be extended to the other non AGM meeting. ICANN meetings are too long. We
> had trouble filling all of our travel slots this time, meeting length
>  being one impediment to participation.
>
>
>
>>
> I think other constituencies in CSG expressed different opinions and didn'
> seems coordinated. so it is fine.
>
>
> Fact.
>
> All groups were willing to accept the February 13th date, although it was
> not always their first choice, except one. The NCUC.
>
> At least that is what I heard.
>
> All CPH groups and the NCSG were willing to go with February 13th. I
> recall Poncelet from NPOC agreeing to accept February 13th, in the chat. It
> was a compromise solution. For most.
>
>
>
>
>
>> No alternative is really good for everybody (or even anybody),
>> we just need to agree on the least bad compromise.
>>
>> if we are equally unsatisfied it would be ok but that is not the case
> currently.
>
>
>
> Correct.
>
> All groups other than the NCUC were willing to accept February 13th.
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
> I am not sure that is the case I would wait for the recordings to
> double-check since new options popped-up. also April/May is an option that
> we can consider.
>
>
> The time to consider is over. We need a decision.
>
> As I wrote in the meeting chat: "We need dates. We have lives".
>
> Late April / early May would make the visa situation worse. Those unable
> to apply for a visa until Copenhagen is over may not have enough time to do
> so for an April meeting; if it is May then South Africa may become a
> problem and if done completely poorly a date in the middle could impact
> visa possibilities for both meetings.
>
> In addition, many of our members are involved in IG activities which, I am
> told, are heavily scheduled this spring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> the point is not just about the travel itself which depends of the
> location but the fact that is 4 or 5 extra days in addition to ICANN
> meetings. the goal is to reduce the burden here.
>
>
> Burden is one of the reasons I agree with Milton that the meeting is
> nonessential and should be eliminated, at least in its current form. If you
> want decreased burden eliminate the meeting. Four or five days is four or
> five days.
>
> What is the proposed solution that reduces the burden? The only one I've
> heard is extending the other meetings. Then the term "burden" is one of
> personal circumstance.
>
> I prefer more and shorter meetings than fewer and longer meetings. These
> long meetings wreak havoc on my personal and professional lives in a way
> shorter meetings do not.
>
> I understand that my perception and circumstance may be different than
> others. All are equally valid. None should be considered absolute.
>
>
>
>
>
>> * 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.
>>
>>
> with holidays in the middle for many here.
>
>
>
> What exactly do we need more time to do? As Tony wrote during the meeting,
> six weeks is enough prep time and we have more than that.
>
>
> * 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.
>>
>>
> that is assuming Iceland is the location and that is not something agreed
> yet . so the issue of visas applications will remain open . I am really
> taking this as matter of principle because the burden of visa issues is
> always for the same folks and we have to mindful about this.
>
>
>
> Again, I get it.
>
> Please propose a solution that does away with this problem. I wish I could
> wave a magic wand and do away with   visas worldwide. I have no such wand.
>
> The only proposal I've heard is extending South Africa which I personally
> reject, as above.
>
> I'll offer another one: do the meeting remotely. No travel, no visa.
>
> I'd happily support this proposal as a way of reducing the visa and travel
> burdens and expanding the possibility of participation for all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> * 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.)
>>
>>
> April/May still in table. we also forget that mid-february is just 3 weeks
> before ICANN meeting in Copenhagen. it is too close.
>
>
> Opinion, not fact.
>
> It is personally easier for me to attend a meeting in February and then
> March and then have a break until
> June than it is to have one in March, one in April/May, one in June.
>
> YMMV.
>
>
> .
>
>> * 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.
>>
>> no opinion for this.
>
>
>> So it seems to me February would be the least bad choice.
>>
>> Have I missed or misunderstood something?
>>
>>
> as I commented above , I don't think that is straightforward and we have
> to weigh all options.
>
>
> We need a decision, not options.
>
> Options were weighed on the call. A decision should have been made. One
> was not.
>
>
> Can we find consensus here? Would a straw poll or the like help?
>>
>>
> fine with polling.
>
>
> Me too! Glad we agree!
>
> Should we poll just on dates, should eliminating the meeting or doing it
> only in a remote fashion be included as options, who should be polled: the
> PC or likely meeting invitees?
>
> I'm flexible on all of this and will support whatever option the majority
> want, even if I disagree with the outcome. We may want to poll not only on
> 'what do you prefer' but also 'will you attend if'...
>
> For example, I would prefer February but would likely attend an April/May
> meeting but will not extend my stay in South Africa from four to seven days
> or be able to attend an August/September meeting.
>
> The thing is a lot of what has been claimed as absolute truths are nothing
> more than personal preferences. In such an instance polling makes sense.
> Good idea, Rafik, and one I support.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/9f6f2e6b/attachment-0001.html>