>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?

It's not a matter of remembering, but predicting.
My understanding is the date of some events based
on the lunar calendar can't be accurately
predicted way in advance, there can be as much as
a couple of weeks or more difference. Last year
the IGF meeting had to be moved a couple of days
to accommodate Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim
festival, which is a strict lunar observance
event (not helpful that the UN can also get these
things wrong! Perhaps GAC is the natural
authority on what events are important to which
countries, regions, religions?)

The point is really to emphasize that we will all
need to be flexible until nearer the date of the
meeting.

>> 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.

Not those that are yet to be predicted.

>>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??

I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I
think there may have been a specific problem with
the Delhi meeting?

>>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.

I think it would help to include something like:

"On the other hand, holding the third meeting of
the year early... " and end with "November
would be the ideal month for the third meeting."

(November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.)

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

The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and
starting at the AGM (example, seating of many
positions), and policy processes often come to
conclusion at the AGM. There have been times in
the past when the third meeting of the year has
been held early and the AGM has had to move to a
later board teleconference (or special meeting.)
This isn't good for transparency, for wrapping
policy processes, for appointments (and the
process of appointments through the year etc).

Thanks,

Adam

>>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Icann-future-wg mailing list
>Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

>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?

It's not a matter of remembering, but predicting.
My understanding is the date of some events based
on the lunar calendar can't be accurately
predicted way in advance, there can be as much as
a couple of weeks or more difference. Last year
the IGF meeting had to be moved a couple of days
to accommodate Eid-Ul-Azha, the biggest Muslim
festival, which is a strict lunar observance
event (not helpful that the UN can also get these
things wrong! Perhaps GAC is the natural
authority on what events are important to which
countries, regions, religions?)

The point is really to emphasize that we will all
need to be flexible until nearer the date of the
meeting.

>> 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.

Not those that are yet to be predicted.

>>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??

I was responding to a comment from Cheryl. I
think there may have been a specific problem with
the Delhi meeting?

>>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.

I think it would help to include something like:

"On the other hand, holding the third meeting of
the year early... " and end with "November
would be the ideal month for the third meeting."

(November need to avoid thanksgiving. But no need to say that I think.)

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

The AGM. The bylaws have cycles ending and
starting at the AGM (example, seating of many
positions), and policy processes often come to
conclusion at the AGM. There have been times in
the past when the third meeting of the year has
been held early and the AGM has had to move to a
later board teleconference (or special meeting.)
This isn't good for transparency, for wrapping
policy processes, for appointments (and the
process of appointments through the year etc).

Thanks,

Adam

>>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Icann-future-wg mailing list
>Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

Hi all
What I do agree is :
a) to have enough time between second to third meetings( summer and vacation
time at north hemisphere) and third to next year first meetings (summer and
vacation time at south hemisphere) to allow policy work and input from
communities.

b)as they already said - avoid important holidays especially related to the
region where the meeting will be organized.

>From my point of view this cover almost all our concerns. I don’t see need
to go into details about it

Best,

Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
& IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464

-----Original Message-----
From: icann-future-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:icann-future-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Greenberg
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:23 PM
To: icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Cc: Thompson, Darlene; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Evan Leibovitch
Subject: Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on
Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013

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

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...
s.icann.org

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

>From the Far East,

We in Japan do not exercise much of Lunar calender, but I have learned,
being involved with Internet development in Asia Pacific, many of our
colleagues lives are very much in sync with Lunar calenders, with
Chinese New Year and Ramadan for Muslims just to mention a few.

Wikipedia says:
"Most lunar calendars are, in fact, lunisolar; such as the Chinese,
Hebrew, and Hindu calendars, and most calendar systems used in
antiquity."

So I guess it is quite important to consider this. If you add Chinese, Hebrew,
Hindu and Muslim population, that's a lot!

izumi

2009/8/11 Alan Greenberg :

>>
>> 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?
>

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

Hi all
What I do agree is :
a) to have enough time between second to third meetings( summer and vacation
time at north hemisphere) and third to next year first meetings (summer and
vacation time at south hemisphere) to allow policy work and input from
communities.

b)as they already said - avoid important holidays especially related to the
region where the meeting will be organized.

>From my point of view this cover almost all our concerns. I don’t see need
to go into details about it

Best,

Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
& IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464

>From the Far East,

We in Japan do not exercise much of Lunar calender, but I have learned,
being involved with Internet development in Asia Pacific, many of our
colleagues lives are very much in sync with Lunar calenders, with
Chinese New Year and Ramadan for Muslims just to mention a few.

Wikipedia says:
"Most lunar calendars are, in fact, lunisolar; such as the Chinese,
Hebrew, and Hindu calendars, and most calendar systems used in
antiquity."

So I guess it is quite important to consider this. If you add Chinese, Hebrew,
Hindu and Muslim population, that's a lot!

izumi

2009/8/11 Alan Greenberg :

>>
>> 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?
>

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

I disagree. Not the subject of the public
comment. Could we discuss this further through
our policy development process, and if necessary
make a separate contribution as a recommendation
to board.

Thanks,

Adam

At 8:27 PM +0200 8/9/09, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
>I would like to suggest to add the following idea (as suggest by Nick and
>taking into account the At-Large position already express).
>"At-Large (ALAC) thinks that in addition to the 3 yearly general meetings,
>at-least 2 regional meeting should be organized by ICANN each year one in
>each of the (2) remaining of ICANN’s five geographic regions. All the
>regional meetings (the current gatherings each year for the contracted
>parties in each region) must be open on equal footing to all constituencies
>and support must be provided for these additional regional meetings, as it
>is for the 3 yearly general meetings."
>
>All the best
>Sébastien Bachollet
>Président d'honneur - Isoc France
>sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr
>www.egeni.org
>www.isoc.fr
>
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp]
>> Envoyé : dimanche 9 août 2009 16:41
>> À : Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Cc : Adam Peake; icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Cheryl
>> Langdon-Orr; Vanda Scartezini UOL; Sébastien Bachollet; Alan Greenberg;
>> Thompson, Darlene
>> Objet : Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on
>> Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013
>>
>> Evan, hi.
>>
>> For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is
>> either high summer or just hot, only southern
>> hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter
>> and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New
>> Zealand :-))
>>
>> But the point is the same, much of northern
>> hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end
>> of June: hot and humid.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...

I disagree. Not the subject of the public
comment. Could we discuss this further through
our policy development process, and if necessary
make a separate contribution as a recommendation
to board.

Thanks,

Adam

At 8:27 PM +0200 8/9/09, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
>I would like to suggest to add the following idea (as suggest by Nick and
>taking into account the At-Large position already express).
>"At-Large (ALAC) thinks that in addition to the 3 yearly general meetings,
>at-least 2 regional meeting should be organized by ICANN each year one in
>each of the (2) remaining of ICANN’s five geographic regions. All the
>regional meetings (the current gatherings each year for the contracted
>parties in each region) must be open on equal footing to all constituencies
>and support must be provided for these additional regional meetings, as it
>is for the 3 yearly general meetings."
>
>All the best
>Sébastien Bachollet
>Président d'honneur - Isoc France
>sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr
>www.egeni.org
>www.isoc.fr
>
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp]
>> Envoyé : dimanche 9 août 2009 16:41
>> À : Evan Leibovitch; Nick Ashton-Hart
>> Cc : Adam Peake; icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Cheryl
>> Langdon-Orr; Vanda Scartezini UOL; Sébastien Bachollet; Alan Greenberg;
>> Thompson, Darlene
>> Objet : Re: [Icann-future-wg] [ALAC-Announce] Public Consultation on
>> Proposed ICANN Meeting Dates 2011 - 2013
>>
>> Evan, hi.
>>
>> For most of the Asia/Australia/Pacific, June is
>> either high summer or just hot, only southern
>> hemisphere Australia/New Zealand would be winter
>> and both are pretty OK (it can rain a lot on New
>> Zealand :-))
>>
>> But the point is the same, much of northern
>> hemisphere Asia can be less pleasant at the end
>> of June: hot and humid.
>>
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Icann-future-wg mailing list
Icann-future-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-future-wg_atlarge-...