[Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting

Rosette, Kristina rosettek at amazon.com
Tue Oct 30 18:14:09 UTC 2018

Another option would be to have 2 locations for the meeting – one in DC and one in Brussels – with video conference.  NoAm members go to DC; everyone else goes to the location that works best for them.  We could use ICANN’s existing office space (although I don’t know how much space there is in Brussels); we’d have a CBI person in each office; staff would be divided between the 2 locations; and we could split the time difference for start/end times.  Kurt would decide where he wants to work from.

From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 2:09 PM
To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg>
Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting

I don’t want to belabor the point that others have made more articulately than I will, but while I think there is value in holding another face-to-face, there is unlikely to be any one set of dates or location that works for everyone.

I am also mindful of the limited budget that we have to work with, and the close attention that the GNSO has been paying to managing its resources to ensure that all of its chartered activities are done at reasonable cost. I am happy to put my hand up here and to say that I have been questioning ICANN org's spend on many activities, and so I feel it would be hypocritical not to do the same here.

So I am certainly happy to defer to leadership to decide where and when to hold the meeting, but I do take objection to the idea that a meeting could be held in a location like Istanbul where we have no members and no staff residing, and where to the best of my knowledge the ICANN office would be too small to accomodate us.

I would not be supportive of the collective time lost putting a majority of our members onto a long-haul flight. We all have many obligations and commitments at present, and aside from losing time recovering from jet lag, it strikes me as incredibly inefficient to make 20 people travel for 14 hours (and another 10+ people travel for 5 hours) to reach a destination where the only reason for having a meeting there would be because of a slightly more liberal visa system.

I am afraid that ICANN cannot resolve the inequalities and discrimination that are present in the world’s visa processes and systems. It is unfair, yes, but just like we cannot fix MLATs or bring about world peace, we do what we can. It is my view that the meeting should be local for as many people as possible. The way that we recalibrate and address barriers to participation is by providing travel funding to bring as many people to the meeting as possible, no matter where in the world they may live, and by having real remote participation for those who do face visa obstacles. The solution is not to make everyone fly half way around the world to Turkey. That’s neither a prudent use of ICANN’s resources nor a good use of the time of our very busy members.

I understand we have one member who cannot travel to the US and some who may need to apply for visas. We should definitely be planning ahead so that visas can be applied for immediately and to minimise the cost of travel to ICANN. Perhaps our US GAC representatives can assist those who have difficulties entering the US with making the appropriate arrangements. But I strongly object to the idea that a meeting cannot be held in a country simply because one of our 32 members cannot travel there. I know this may sound harsh, but we talking about spending public interest money here, and we should be doing so prudently.

If it would be cheaper to hold the meeting in the United States, and a majority of EPDP members are based there, I believe we should do so. Conserve funds, volunteer time, and our health. As has been shown in September, ICANN is able to deliver high-quality remote participation facilities from Los Angeles. I believe ICANN also has conference space in Washington D.C., which might be a shorter trip for more travellers.

I write this message in my personal capacity, acknowledging very clearly that my position here is likely different to that from other NCSG representatives on the EPDP. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 11:00, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg>> wrote:

Amr for Canada don't apply online, just go in person you don't need an appointment and I think it will  take you much less time than you actually think.


From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:57 AM
To: farzaneh badii
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Next face-to-face meeting

Even if you need a visa for Turkey, e-visas are an option, which makes visiting there at short notice far simpler.



On Oct 28, 2018, at 8:20 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM<mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:

I (personally) support Istanbul. One of the rare countries that I do not need a visa to go to.


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja<mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote:


I also believe a F2F meeting in which we can take public comments in to account would be more favorable. It’s clear that we will not work out all the divergent views in time for the publication of the initial report, and that we will need to solicit input on those views in preparation for our final stretch of work on the final report.

Having as much input as possible before meeting F2F seems to make sense to me, which seems to mean that a January meeting is the one in which we might be able to make more progress.

Regarding location, a meeting in a Schengen state would probably be easier than one in North America for those who need to apply for visas. Visa processing times for a Schengen are shorter than those for the US or Canada, for some reason. Speaking for myself, I need 37 days just for the visa processing time for a Canadian visa, and a few months for a visa to the US.

Another potential option I believe we should consider is Istanbul, and ICANN has a regional hub there too.



On Oct 28, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>> wrote:


I hope everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home.

I prefer a January meeting because it allows us to take into account public comment and avoids holiday/end-of-year conflicts.

If the meeting is scheduled for December, may I suggest Toronto, which avoids the travel conflict that some members have? (Airfare is also significantly less expensive for those coming from North America and Asia.)


On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>> wrote:

Hi Everyone:

Thank you again for your time, effort and thought during the ICANN meeting. While others were visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer, we were all not visiting the various great sites that Barcelona has to offer.

Yesterday, I met with Nick Tomasso who heads the ICANN meetings team to develop some options for the next face-to-face meeting. At various times during the past week, many of you approached me with the following points:

  *   Our results are significantly better in a face-to-face format
  *   The proverbial clock is ticking
  *   We should strive to maintain the momentum we have, therefore
  *   We should hold our next meeting as soon as possible.

With that in mind, Nick said he could support the following two options, a meeting

  *   In the first or second week in December
  *   In the second or third week of January

[Meetings less than 90 days away require Göran’s approval, but Nick believes he can obtain this. Nick is checking on venues with which he is familiar in Brussels now, although the meeting location is not certain.]

I am of two minds on this but do have an opinion and would appreciate your feedback over the next few days so that I can get back to Nick the first of next week.

1) The January meeting is more or less timed for us to take into account the first round of public comment.

2) Te December meeting allows us to keep working after the initial report is issued (or to wrap up the initial report in the worse case).

I think the December meeting is the better option for us. We are not going to stand down after the initial report is issued. There is a lot of work to be done. It is better, I think, to meet and consider unsettled issues, rather than meet to discuss the effect of public comment. If we are serious about finishing on time, I don’t think we can stop. So despite the inconvenience (and it will be very inconvenient for me), I think we should meet sooner rather than later.

Of course, this all depends on the ICANN meetings team pulling this off, which is no small feat,

Let me know your thoughts, I will write to Nick on Tuesday.

Best regards,


Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20181030/a9179c8f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list