[PC-NCSG] Intersessional
matthew shears
mshears
Wed Nov 23 12:01:24 EET 2016
+ 1 Ed
If we can't agree on a date then lets just go with the date that others
can agree on (which I assume is the Feb date Ed refers to below). At
least then we know what we are working with and can try and make it as
doable and useful as possible.
Matthew
On 23/11/2016 08:39, Edward Morris wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------
>> > Matthew Shears
>> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> > + 44 771 2472987 <tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20161123/c63136d3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list