[Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013

[Alan Greenberg]

See embedded comments.  Alan

At 09/08/2009 10:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

>How would everyone be with the following:
>
>
>
>The ALAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on
>"ICANN Meeting Dates / Geographic Rotation 2011 -
>2012 - 2013".
>
>1. We recognize the dates have been selected to
>avoid "important holidays, celebrations, and
>observances around the globe", and note the
>difficultly of long term planning when many such
>events are based on the lunar calendar.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really 
don't see what the relevance is of discussing 
lunar-calendar driven events. The quoted 
statements says that important events are taken 
into account. Why does it matter that some of 
them have their dates set by lunar timing - yes, 
it makes remembering when they are more difficult, but is that an issue here?

>  We
>suggest reference to a calendar of events
>published by an independent and authoritative
>body, for example the United Nations, be adopted
>and made available to the community, however the
>problem of planning to the lunar calendar may be
>difficult to resolve and we encourage flexibility.

This may be a way to help identify events, but is 
that really what was being addressed in the call 
for comments. Perhaps it would identify something 
the planners missed, but hopefully 10 year sof 
experieeince will have allowed us to catch most events.


>2. Globally significant events must of course be
>avoided, we also ask that national holidays,
>celebrations, and observances of the host country
>be taken into consideration.  This may mean
>flexibility in the dates when considering the
>best candidate country.

Again, perhaps I have missed something, but is 
there a strong feeling that we have not honoured 
these in the past when we really should have??


>3. Please ensure there is ample time for policy
>development between meetings.  For example,
>meeting #39, 5-10 December 2010 (Latin America)
>and meeting #40, 13-18 March 2011 (North
>America).  Typically there is a quiet period
>after meetings while staff and volunteers
>recover, which in this case will run into the end
>of year celebrations and long holidays, leaving
>too little time to respond to policy processes
>and ample public comment before the meeting in
>the spring.  Holding the third meeting of the
>year early, i.e. October, should be avoided.
>This compresses the time available for policy
>development during the year, and in the past it
>has been necessary to hold additional meetings of
>the board to complete work. This is a burden for
>the board, already overworked, and the rest of
>the community.


I *think* i agree with the sentiment, but the 
example seems backwards. Having a meeting in 
early December, followed by "down time" followed 
by holidays leaves little time for real work if 
the next meeting is in March. Is the 
recommendation to not hold a meeting in October a 
solution to this (which seems backwards) or a 
second caution to not hold the 3rd meeting TOO early.

Also, not sure why the reference specifically to the Board.


>4.  The North American RALO recommends swapping
>meetings #40 (North America) and #41 (Asia), the
>climate is likely to be generally more favorable
>in both regions if a swap can be made.  As
>regards meeting #40, winter in North America
>brings with it routine air travel delays, often
>quite significant, due to inclement weather, and
>the swap would also move this meeting away from
>the clash with March local holidays as noted in
>other comments.
>
>   ENDs
>
>Is this OK?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>At 8:58 AM -0400 8/8/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> >
> >>In NARALO, there has been a dicussion of the
> >>advisability of swapping meeting 40 and 41, as
> >>at present they will both take place in the
> >>winter in their respective region. As regards
> >>meeting 40, as many of us know from personal
> >>experience, winter in North America brings with
> >>it routine air travel delays, often quite
> >>significant, due to inclement weather, so
> >>moving this meeting into the summer is
> >>advisable on that basis.
> >>
> >Many worthy sites in Canada and northern USA
> >would simply be unsuitable for meetings in
> >February/March, for reasons that go well beyond
> >the air travel disruption. I'm quite certain
> >that many ICANN delegates do not possess the
> >clothing necessary to handle potential February
> >weather in Québec City, Boston, Calgary or
> >Chicago.
> >
> >- Evan