[NCSG-PC] Fwd: YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for 2018 NCPH Intersessional & GNSO Council strategic planning sessions

Sat Jul 29 17:03:58 EEST 2017

I really resist the idea of merging these two distinct meetings into one, not least because if the dates do not work well, one misses both meetings rather than just the one.
We are also volunteers and have commitments outside of ICANN. A question I thus have is, isn't it easier to escape for three days, especially if the meeting began on a Sunday? One could thus travel on the Saturday, take a red eye on the Tuesday, and be home by Wednesday AM.
Best wishes, Ayden

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 2:26 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with almost everything said. There are levels of truth in all of them. I only support the idea of the meeting if we have a very well thought plan of action that squeeze out the potential of such a reunion. Last ones felt that the potential was not met, but I understands this meetings were in pilot mode so I understand if we are still looking for the correct format/planning, if there is any.
> I also think is convenient to mash up both meetings, since NCPH is a part of GNSO, but, since I’ve never been to a GNSO Council Planning meeting, so I have no idea if they are or not mashable. In my case, as in the case of almost all councilors, traveling is a cost, we have to put in place whole systems to keep life going while we are absent. So anything that makes easier that part I will celebrate. I’m OK with LA or DC, and I agree Mexico is also a very fare place to do it.
> So, to summarize, I will support another meeting of this, as long as we can make a sense out of it, incline cost wise for ICANN and us.
> Cheers,
> Martín
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.c
>
>> a> wrote:
>>
>> I am not enthusiastic about more meetings either. And I am not keen on travelling to the US.....Los Angeles takes way longer than Iceland, for me, with way more hassle. I have never been to Mexico, so I dont know how hard that is. Am indifferent about putting the two meetings together, makes sense not to fly twice.
>>
>> cheers SP
>>
>> On 2017-07-28 18:30, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I am among those who are not really supporting holding another intersessional meeting next year. We are not doing any serious review and trying to improve it but just carrying on because we got a budget.
>>> if the interesessional will be organized anyway, I think it would make sense to hold it in the same week with the Council planning meeting. that means 1 travel less for councilors at least.
>>> Best,
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-07-28 19:57 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing this, Stephanie, and for inviting our feedback.
>>>> I think the two meetings should be held separately at different times of the year, as they serve different purposes and cater to different audiences [with some overlap].
>>>> I understand that ICANN staff try only to travel during business hours, but some of our participants might find it easier to be able to travel to a meeting over a weekend and to have the meeting commence on a Sunday. I am not sure what others think about this suggestion, particularly those on the GNSO Council who would be impacted here, but just putting that idea out there...
>>>> For the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Meeting, it makes sense to me to have this in Los Angeles given it is the closest ICANN office for the majority of the likely participants.
>>>> For the Intersessional (which I think should continue, though I understand that is not a view held by all) I also think Los Angeles makes a lot of sense, though I understand the participant profiles vary, and it may be very difficult for many of the Intersessional participants to travel to the United States. Based on the participant profiles of everyone who attended the Intersessional this year, I believe Mexico City would be much easier for everyone to travel to [anyone with an existing US or Canadian visa does not need a visa to enter Mexico, and for many in Latin America, Mexico’s immigration policies are very fair]. It would also be a rather economical choice.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for 2018 NCPH Intersessional & GNSO Council strategic planning sessions
>>>>> Local Time: July 27, 2017 9:37 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: July 27, 2017 8:37 PM
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we ought to discuss this on the broader list as well, just forwarding....
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject:	YOUR FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Planning for 2018 NCPH Intersessional & GNSO Council strategic planning sessions
>>>>> Date:	Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:22:29 +0000
>>>>> From:	Mary Wong [<mary.wong at icann.org>](mailto:mary.wong at icann.org)
>>>>> To:	Phil Corwin [<psc at vlaw-dc.com>](mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com), Susan Kawaguchi [<susankpolicy at gmail.com>](mailto:susankpolicy at gmail.com), Heather Forrest [<haforrestesq at gmail.com>](mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com), icannlists [<icannlists at winston.com>](mailto:icannlists at winston.com), Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben [<wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>](mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de), Anthony Harris [<anthonyrharris at gmail.com>](mailto:anthonyrharris at gmail.com), Rafik Dammak [<rafik.dammak at gmail.com>](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com), Milan, Stefania [<Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>](mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu), Marilia Maciel [<mariliamaciel at gmail.com>](mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com), Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), Martin Pablo Silva Valent [<mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>](mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com), Johan Helsingius [<julf at julf.com>](mailto:julf at julf.com)
>>>>> CC:	Benedetta Rossi [<benedetta.rossi at icann.org>](mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Heather, Susan, Marilia, Stefania, Stephanie, Phil, Rafik, Tony, Julf, Wolf-Ulrich, Paul and Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am writing to seek your input as we (ICANN staff) begin working with the GNSO Council leadership and the NCPH leadership to plan two face-to-face meetings that have been approved for FY 2018. One is a 2-3 day strategic planning session for the GNSO Council (approved as a pilot project for FY2018), and the other is the periodic NCPH Intersessional meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the application for the GNSO Council’s strategic planning meeting had indicated that this might take place in January 2018, and as the NCPH Intersessional has traditionally taken place in January or February, staff would like to know if you believe it will be preferable for these two meetings to take place concurrently, such that both meetings can occur within the space of a single week in the same location, or if you think it will be better to plan them as two separate meetings taking place at different times in the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may be interested to know that the ICANN process for face-to-face meeting planning has been updated (as of June 2017), such that meeting requests for location, dates and travel now have to be sent in several months ahead of time. For the GNSO Council strategic planning meeting, the budget approval requires an ICANN office location, with preference for Los Angeles – hence, if you think running both meetings concurrently in the same week is better, this will most probably mean that the NCPH Intersessional will take place in Los Angeles as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that, as these events are going to take place in calendar year 2018, several of you may no longer be on the Council by that time. In addition, decisions and programming concerning the NCPH Intersessional is the responsibility of the NCPH leadership and not the GNSO Council. However, for planning purposes we thought it appropriate to seek as much input as possible from those community members who may be most affected by the dates and timing, and so we hope you are able to provide us with your opinion as to which option is preferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170729/e4acab95/attachment.htm>