[NCSG-PC] NCSG comment on Proposed Incremental Changes to the ICANN Meetings Strategy

[farzaneh badii]

Hi

I agree with Ayden.

As to adding an additional day to policy forum for outreach, we should
support it (I checked, it's supported in GNSO Council public comment). But
then GNSO council doc says that it should not only be limited to outreach
and groups should be allowed to do whatever they desire. I warn you against
this language. GNSO and PDPs staff can always organize PDPs and meetings
that conflicts with outreach. Our best people want to attend these meeitngs
and can't attend outreach.
It even surprises me why this is up for debate. The Policy Forum was never
meant to be just policy forum. It was policy and outreach forum but those
who don't want outreach kept ignoring the outreach aspect.

I care about outreach. It has not worked very well for us in terms of
getting people interested in policy but I think we can work on it and do
outreach and in-reach during that day, hopefully with the peace of mind
that GNSO and PDPs won't have dozens of meetings we want to attend.

****
I don't see a comment on location selection. Is it not for comment now? We
need to comment on location selection criteria if that part is also
included. NCSG cares about this. Although the paper says:

{Q: Is there a preference from SO/AC leaders to adopt new criteria for the
selection of ICANN Meeting locations based on factors such as gender
issues, democratic principles, and strict rules in observance of religious
holidays?



The consensus among community leaders and representatives was that no new
criteria for the selection of ICANN Meeting locations should be added.}


I should say that  not considering democratic values, gender issues etc for
venue selection was not NCSG position and during the meeting I tried to
cast the vote in line with NCSG position (however difficult). Some NCSG
members believe that democratic values, gender issues etc should be
considered for venue selection. You might want to add that to the public
comment that  If these criteria are not considered, ICANN should commit to
providing a safe environment for the participants.

Also ICANN should look at other organizations. For example refer to  IETF
Meeting Selection Criteria :
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-12.html#rfc.section.3.1

I think IETF doc is quite appropriate. Maybe we ask them to convene a group
to discuss meeting location? Do they normally seek community input on
meeting location so that it does not come as a surprise?






Farzaneh

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 9:17 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> I think the comment which the GNSO Council submitted on this topic
> captures these arguments well, so I am not sure there is a need for the
> NCSG to submit a separate one. However if we do submit one under separate
> cover I would make it clear that frontloading all the important sessions
> into day one or two of the meeting (because some stakeholders do not attend
> the entire meeting) is problematic and an unwise scheduling decision, in my
> humble opinion.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On 30 January 2018 8:17 PM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I drafted this comment but it has received only one edit from Rafik:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MIeFmS_LXmo04CyzxZ8hlFdAvG_
> tUhkBGxY2J_ffCvI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Can we have a look and add some substance to have it ready for submission
> or not?
>
> Thanks,
> Arsene
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN's GNSO Council
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. AFRINIC Fellow
> (Mauritius
> <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>
> )* - *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance -
> Internet Freedom.
>
> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180205/a6001df3/attachment.htm>