<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19154"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial><SPAN
class=535440621-01122011>I agree on both of Bill's
questions. Although after hearing all the horror stories of what
everyone went through at that hotel, I think Les Almadies should be
re-named Les Maladies.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial><BR><BR><FONT color=#000080>Sarah B. Deutsch
<BR>Vice President & Associate General Counsel <BR>Verizon Communications
<BR>Phone: 703-351-3044 <BR>Fax: 703-351-3670 </FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Marilyn
Cade<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Bill
Smith<BR><B>Cc:</B> bc - GNSO list<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [bc-gnso] Concerns
about the Hotel in Dakar<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Bill, I fully support your assessment of the 'right
question'.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Your response was very helpful.<BR><BR>
<DIV>> From: bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<BR>> To:
marilynscade@hotmail.com<BR>> CC: bc-gnso@icann.org<BR>> Date: Thu, 1 Dec
2011 12:56:12 -0700<BR>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Concerns about the Hotel in
Dakar<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> 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:<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> Breakfast was
acceptable and I enjoyed each morning's crepes w/sugar and review of the prior
night's "stories".<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>>
<BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> My 2 cents. Sorry for taking up
list bandwidth.<BR>> <BR>> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Marilyn Cade
wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> First, I need to hear from the BC folks
who did stay at that hotel.<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> Can those of you who were at the hotel look at
the report from ALAC, and give me [off list] your quick experience?<BR>>
<BR>> Re the letter:<BR>> --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.<BR>> <BR>> For now, ignore the
unfortunate staff letter to the Minister. That will be addressed by the Chair,
with an apology.<BR>> <BR>> However, the responsibility of ICANN to
address their decisions and endorsement of the hotel remains.<BR>> <BR>>
Do any of the affected BC members want to share any of your experiences?<BR>>
<BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>>
<BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> BUT, the focus we all take
should be the ALAC report and any augmentation, or just general agreement, if
that was also your experience.<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> Accepting
and endorsing hotels is the responsibility of ICANN staff -- and requires due
diligence, and accountability.<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> Marilyn Cade,<BR>> BC
Chair<BR>> <BR>> P.S. Mikey, thanks for putting the doc up.<BR>>
<BR>> ==================<BR>> <BR>> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] a
pretty scathing report from At Large about Hotel Almendine in Dakar<BR>> >
From: mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com><BR>> > Date: Thu, 1
Dec 2011 11:55:07 -0600<BR>> > To:
bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > i threw a copy up on my server -- here's the link;<BR>>
><BR>> > http://www.haven2.com/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf<BR>>
><BR>> > mikey<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > On Dec 1, 2011,
at 10:32 AM, Smith, Bill wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > ><BR>> > >
And now the report is no longer on the ICANN site.<BR>> > ><BR>>
> > On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:<BR>> >
><BR>> > > hi all,<BR>> > ><BR>> > > 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.<BR>> > ><BR>>
> >
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf<BR>>
> ><BR>> > > they raise some pretty interesting points -- and
offer suggestions on how to move forward.<BR>> > ><BR>> > >
m<BR>> > ><BR>> > > - - - - - - - - -<BR>> > > phone
651-647-6109<BR>> > > fax 866-280-2356<BR>> > > web
http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/><BR>> > > handle
OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<BR>>
> ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> > - - - -
- - - - -<BR>> > phone 651-647-6109<BR>> > fax 866-280-2356<BR>>
> web http://www.haven2.com<BR>> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public
places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
<BR>> <BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>