[Gnso-epdp-team] Travel Planning to Los Angeles
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 17:05:46 UTC 2018
We have been raising objections about alternates being able to be present
at the meeting when they do not replace a member.
We have provided reasons which I reiterate here:
1. Principle: the EPDP membership structure was designed carefully to reach
the right balance and representation. Presence of alternates even if they
do not speak during the meeting meddles with the balance. Here are my
reasons: Alternates can discuss face to face outside of the meeting about
the issues, discuss with their counterparts and relay their views much
easier so that they can be channeled through the meeting. Nothing
inherently wrong with that, but it should not be facilitated either. They
can do it on chat, but face to face is more effective.
2. Setting precedent: we agreed on the balance of representation and the
role of members and alternates at GNSO. We are opening the door to meddling
in this role.
3. Unclear intention: What is the intention here exactly? Why are we
accommodating this request? I would like to hear why this request was made
initially. If the presence of alternates in the room makes no difference,
then they can just sit behind their computer and discuss with their
colleagues through other means. I am not implying at all that there is a
bad intention. But the intention is not clear. Is it to easily replace a
member if they are tired in the middle of the meeting? I don't think this
is a football match.
4. Imbalance of power: Bringing the alternates, in my opinion, adds to the
strength of a group and makes it easier for them to deliberate
spontaneously. Some groups have the funds to bring in their alternates,
some don't. So there will be power imbalance. You could argue that I can
just bring in NCSG alternates too. That is not possible. Because they live
around the world and we don't have funding to bring them. Also it's against
the principle I mentioned above.
As a group that has had to fight for being given equal representation in
this EPDP, I find it puzzling that accommodating such requests that can
bring imbalance of representation is being done so easily.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
> Hello Everyone:
> After reviewing the chat and content of our call Tuesday, 21 August, it
> has been decided to proceed with the meeting in Los Angeles as proposed.
> (See bullet three, below.)
> 1. Members who are attending in person already should have travel
> arrangements in process.
> 2. Members unable to attend should have designated their alternates for
> attendance, who should be in contact with ICANN regarding travel
> arrangements. (See Alternate Assignment form,
> Remote participation is available for members that prefer to participate
> remotely instead of designating an alternate.
> 3. Members who are attending but will miss a portion of the meeting should
> designate an alternate who will replace that member when they are gone from
> the meeting for a significant period. That alternate will be permitted to
> sit in on the entire three-day meeting but participate only when the member
> is absent from the meeting. In these cases, alternates will not be provided
> travel funding. Travel funding is allocated based on the number of members
> in each group.
> Remote participation will also be available for those members that prefer
> to participate remotely instead of designating an alternate.
> If any of the above is not clear or if you have questions, you can contact
> me, Rafik or the ICANN Support Team.
> Through this email, I am asking Terri Agnew to follow up with you to
> ensure all necessary travel is planned and funded.
> I am looking forward to the meeting and commit to work with the support
> staff to make the effort on your part worth your while.
> Best regards,
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team