[Npoc-discuss] NPOC position on the Intersessional meetings

[Sam Lanfranco]

I want to thank Olevie and Remmy for opening up this discussion about 
the ICANN Intersessional meetings.

Having attended two ICANN Intersessionals, one at ICANN's expense and 
one at my own expense, I am left more with questions than with answers 
on the usefulness of the Intersessionals.

First, they are expensive, both in terms of ICANN costs and the costs to 
participants. This is particularly true for NPOC/NCSG/NCUC participants 
who have to take time away from jobs and other tasks. For others, in the 
contracted and non-contracted commercial constituencies, the time and 
costs are usually treated as part of their paid time and work. This 
imbalance occurs for ICANN meetings as well, and there is no simple cure 
for that imbalance. For me that means that intersessionals have to be 
evaluated in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness for the 
subsequent for work of ICANN, in working groups and subsequent ICANN 
conferences. For the NCSG constituencies "is the gain worth the pain?". 
What is the evidence of improved efficiency and effectiveness for 
subsequent ICANN work? That is the question I have, and at most all I 
have heard is personal opinions (by participants) on the usefulness of 
the meetings.

Remmy has repeated the oft cited mantra that "this kind of Meeting 
creates [a] distinct enabling environment for cross-group or 
constituents collaboration.".  That assertion is yet to be tested with 
any rigor. I will not belabor this point and only observe that I have 
not sensed any improvement in either working group discussions or the 
subsequent ICANN meeting discussions on the topics discussed at the 
intersessionals. Neither have I seen either a deeper understanding of 
the conflicting positions of other constituencies, or evidence of 
intersessional fostered compromises being tabled to improve progress in 
working groups and at ICANN conferences.

The Intersessionals may be a pleasant, albeit costly, experience for 
those who participate, but we need better evidence that they are worth 
the effort and expense. I would hope that my assessment in the previous 
paragraph is wrong, and based in inadequate evidence, and I am more than 
ready to reverse my assessment in the face of evidence. What do the rest 
of my NPOC colleagues think about this? What is the evidence?

Sam Lanfranco
NPOC/csih