[bc-gnso] ICANN Kenya

[Ron Andruff]

Dear members,

 

For those keeping track of who is planning to attend the Nairobi meeting,
this email is to confirm that I, too, will be attending.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:27 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Kenya

 

This just in.  I'm still planning to go.

Date:  Monday, 15 February 2010

ICANN's internal team - including staff from the US (California, Texas, New
Jersey), France and Niger - continued to meet daily over the weekend to
discuss and share information regarding the ICANN Nairobi meeting.

Today and last night, we had direct contact with the local Kenyan members of
the security planning committee, and there has been an enhanced, on the
ground commitment for additional security and this group will work closely
with the on-site security experts that ICANN has under contract. ICANN's
security team thinks these are strong, positive steps.

The Kenya National Intelligence Service (NISIS) has increased its efforts to
mitigate potential terrorist threats.   The Kenya Anti-terrorist Police Unit
(ATPU) is currently actively involved in the security planning process and
has already started to put detection, as well as other preventative measures
in place. The Kenya Diplomatic Protection unit has also been activated to
assist with the security of the conference. Additionally, covert and overt
security forces are being deployed at the KICC, hotels and venues where
official functions will be held. Additionally, the airport, and road from
the airport to hotels. will be actively monitored and patrolled by security
forces.

It is important for delegates to understand that ensuring a safe conference
is a very important to the Government of Kenya.    The country relies
heavily on tourism and strives to be a preferred destination for
international conferences.  
We are all seeing community members starting to react to the situation in
Kenya, as they perceive it. There have been posted letters from Neustar and
GoDaddy, among others, indicating that they will not attend or send
representatives. Also, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) has
decided to hold an alternative meeting in New York.

Others in the community are re-confirming their attendance in Nairobi. In a
note from ccNSO Chair, Chris Disspain, to be posted today, he has confirmed
that the ccNSO is expecting to participate in the Nairobi meeting, as
planned, with all or most all counselors in attendance. Less formally, I've
heard that many in At Large have expressed the same view.

So, where does this leave all of us?

The first order of business, is that ICANN will continue to monitor the
status in Nairobi, and will share all relevant information with the
community, in accordance with our goal to be fully transparent . I will
ensure we do that on an ongoing basis.

We are left with a situation where some people would choose to attend the
meeting, and some choose not to attend, based on exactly the same
information. One answer will clearly not work for all.

One alternative being discussed is how to better support a meeting where
remote participation is going to be a more significant part of the meeting.
What does enhanced remote participation look like in the context of an ICANN
meeting? Remote participation is a challenge when a minority of participants
are using that mode; if many were, how effective could that be? How would
this work with scheduling, time zones, and the expected meeting formats
we've used? Any comments you have on this would be greatly appreciated. Look
for a posting on the ICANN blog, where you can respond directly.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100216/697ab068/attachment.html>