[bc-gnso] Concerns about the Hotel in Dakar

Smith, Bill bill.smith at paypal-inc.com
Thu Dec 1 19:56:12 UTC 2011

I took a quick look at the ALAC report. Thanks Mikey! I enjoyed the pictures getting to relive some of the best moments of my stay at Les Alamadies.

The pictures and the brief descriptions surrounding them are accurate. I can't speak for the remainder of the report and really don't want to wade through the entire thing. I would describe my stay at Les Almadies like this:

On arrival, I was (not pleasantly) surprised. Fortunately it was dark so I was unable to see some of the more obvious physical failings of the hotel. Fortunately, there were others at the hotel to share our experiences. Tears from crying became tears of laughter as we related the many unpleasant details of our stay.

Breakfast was acceptable and I enjoyed each morning's crepes w/sugar and review of the prior night's "stories".

I would not stay at Les Almadies again, but neither would I write a letter to an African government minister complaining about issues that a US Private corporation is more responsible for.

The question we should be asking, and ICANN should be answering, is why would ICANN *ever* recommend a property in such a state of decline? If this were my first ICANN meeting, I'd have serious concerns about their ability to run a meeting, much less the DNS.

My 2 cents. Sorry for taking up list bandwidth.

On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

Thanks to Mikey for the resurrection of the ALAC Report, and the [miscommunication] by ICANN staff to the Minister. The letter is not on the ICANN site because it is being 'readdressed'. I spoke to the Chair and Vice Chair last night. A different approach will take place including an apology to the Minister for the letter. ICANN will address the complaints, themselves.

First, I need to hear from the BC folks who did stay at that hotel.

I know that one member moved, and Chris and I had offered to have another BC member move into one of our rooms, but that didn't happen.
Can those of you who were at the hotel look at the report from ALAC, and give me [off list] your quick experience?

Re the letter:
--the complaint is about the lack of due diligence of ICANN staff, and once it surfaced, how the ICANN staff [meetings staff] handled the complaints/or did not.

For now, ignore the unfortunate staff letter to the Minister. That will be addressed by the Chair, with an apology.

However, the responsibility of ICANN to address their decisions and endorsement of the  hotel remains.

Do any of the affected BC members want to share any of your experiences?

I feel very badly about this for our members. As you all know, originally, Chris, Bene and I were at that hotel. When I moved us due to bad feedback, I had also alerted the members we knew who were there that we were moving ourselves. The cost of moving was rather excessive. But, I didn't realize that ICANN was putting people that they were funding at that hotel.  So, our outreach to members was limited accordingly.

There is a longer term issue in that ICANN continues to accept venue hotels with very limited room availability. We continue to find that the venue hotel is booked out before the host site even goes live, which is a future challenge. On that front,   Ayesha and I participated in the Meetings public session and raised several issues.

And, in that meeting, I did raise the concerns about the experiences of those at that hotel. I cannot tell you that the Board members present demonstrated much awareness of the serious nature of the concerns, not did they ask any questions to learn more.

BUT, the focus  we all take should be the ALAC report and any augmentation, or just general agreement, if that was also your experience.

As noted, there should not have been an ICANN staff letter to the Minister, and that is separately addressed. I am pleased that the Chair and Vice Chair are both now aware, and addressing that misfortunate misdirected staff communication.  We don't need to say more on that front. I was disappointed to hear that they were not briefed on site; but I gather that 'gap' is also now addressed with staff.

Accepting and endorsing hotels is the responsibility of ICANN staff -- and requires  due diligence, and accountability.

if you were at the hotel and want to share your concerns, please email me and copy Bene, who will compile and help me to generalize the experiences.

Marilyn Cade,
BC Chair

P.S. Mikey, thanks for putting the doc up.


> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] a pretty scathing report from At Large about Hotel Almendine in Dakar
> From: mike at haven2.com<mailto:mike at haven2.com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:55:07 -0600
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>
> i threw a copy up on my server -- here's the link;
> http://www.haven2.com/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf
> mikey
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Smith, Bill wrote:
> >
> > And now the report is no longer on the ICANN site.
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > hi all,
> >
> > i remember several of you mentioning that it was pretty rough going at the Alemendine. i had no idea *how* rough. here's an astonishing report from the At Large documenting the situation with a poll and pictures.
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf
> >
> > they raise some pretty interesting points -- and offer suggestions on how to move forward.
> >
> > m
> >
> > - - - - - - - - -
> > phone 651-647-6109
> > fax 866-280-2356
> > web http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> >
> >
> >
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list