I’ll probably be posting about this at greater length elsewhere…
The ICANN meeting in Nairobi seems to be attracting more publicity and debate than any other meeting in the last couple of years.
Why?
Because so many people are making noises about either attending OR not attending it.
I’m not attending. I’d love to be able to attend all the ICANN meetings, but I simply can’t.
There are several reasons why I’m not attending and they’re all inter-related.
To start with attending ICANN meetings is not cheap. Sure some people get funding from ICANN and 3rd parties to attend. I don’t. In common with ANY business trip I have to weigh up the costs of attending with the benefits. The trip to the Seoul meeting, for example, was far from cheap. You have to factor in several things not least of them being the cost of flights and the hotels – and unfortunately ICANN meetings generally seem to end up being in hotels that cost about $200 / night (or more).
Security is another issue.
Nairobi was meant to be the venue of the ICANN meeting a couple of years ago, but they ended up relocating it to LA. The security threats in Nairobi have been a matter of concern for quite a few people, but they weren’t really at the forefront until quite recently. Having said that when I mentioned Nairobi to my mother she was not happy. Not happy at all and since she doesn’t normally worry about those kind of things, I’d take her concerns very seriously.
My business partner wasn’t too happy about the idea either, so that’s pretty much a clincher.
As a result of the genuine security concerns quite a few other people have decided against going.
Fewer attendees might be seen as positive in some quarters, but if you treat an ICANN meeting as a business event then fewer attendees will have a direct and tangible impact on the chances of recouping the costs via sales etc.,
Since the ICANN public meetings are where a lot of the various groups interact then fewer attendees will mean that a lot less actual progress will be made on existing issues.
But let’s go back to the two key points:
- Economics
- Security
When you put them side by side it’s pretty clear that it’s not really a viable option for me to attend.
Of course there is always the option of ICANN moving its location or for various groups within ICANN to convene in a number of “hubs”
Ultimately everyone has to decide for themselves whether they should attend or not. I’ve decided not to, for my reasons, others have decided to go regardless. What irks me is when people try to make the entire “go – don’t go” thing into a political and PR football.
If someone decides not to attend that is their call. Respect their decision.
If someone chose not to go because their wife was expecting, for example, there’d be no commentary. But choosing not to go because you or your dependants / relatives / co-workers etc., are concerned about your personal wellbeing shouldn’t be an excuse for some people to get up on a soapbox and try to make out that they are somehow more superior and “better” by choosing to go.
I guess in some ways it’s a reflection of the general attitude of people within the ICANN community. Mutual respect is sorely lacking in some quarters. People will pay “lip service” to it, but they just love the “politicking”
Excellent post, Michele.
And I would add the idea that, in order to be successful, an ICANN meeting must achieve a sort of “critical mass” in terms of attendance and participation by all interests within the community.
ICANN meetings that become “unbalanced” in terms of attendee participation will dramatically reduce the likelihood of any significant achievements or decisions. And this disrupts the cost/risk vs. benefit issues you’ve described above.
That said, I hope ICANN’s ears are open on this incident, and the planning & selection of future venues can be more of a community effort. This is also a great opportunity to showcase (read: improve) it’s remote participation facilities, which have the potential to increase participation & outreach far greater than any far-flung locale.
J.
Standard Disclaimer: I make these statements in a personal capacity, and they do not necessarily reflect the positions of my employer.
James
Thanks 🙂
I’d agree entirely with your comment.
ICANN has been using remote participation tools for some time now – a meeting like this one with fewer and fewer actual participants in the room would be the ideal time to make the most of them. Though having said that they’d need to be able to ensure a certain amount of bandwidth etc., “on site”. Even the London meeting during the summer had issues with connectivity, so I’ve no idea how well Nairobi would cope if there were a few hundred people “dialed in”.
I was originally opposed to the idea of locating the meetings at hubs, but I’m revising that opinion now
Thanks for your comment
Michele
Mea Culpa. I’m the one on the soapbox scolding people for considering their security. I think Michele is right that I went over the line. I apologize to him and anyone else I might have offended. Everyone needs to make their own decisions based on the facts of their lives and their personal feelings/tolerances.
I also agree with James that there needs to be a quorum for decisions to be made. That quorum can be achieved through remote participation, which is something that ICANN has talked about a lot but has never had to implement on any large scale.
Ideally, we would be able to have some sort of physical meeting by those who feel able to attend, supplemented by remote participation.
Antony
Firstly, I’m not looking to pick a fight, just give my 2 cents (love it or leave it)… *climbs onto soapbox*
The security threat in Nairobi is very real. And I’m not suggesting that ICANN does not recognize this, or are not preparing for this.
I recently traveled to Kenya (& Sudan) with a charity, and the entire time I was in Nairobi (6 days) I could not go anywhere without some form of security.
There are bomb threats. But the biggest concern for our group was kidnapping and robbery.
I personally don’t believe Nairobi is an appropriate location for a business meeting (right now) – not when ICANN can choose anywhere in the world.
Needless to say, I won’t be attending, but will be wishing my best to those that are.
/2 cents
Thanks Michele for your thoughtful and balanced post. I, too, would like to echo the call that people respect each other’s choices about attending or not attending the meeting. I think that characterising the choices of others in negative terms doesn’t really benefit anyone.
We are working very hard internally on remote participation for this meeting; I’m the overall coordinator of the effort. I think everyone will find that things RP-related at Nairobi take quite a leap forward from previous meetings.
You will find that when the schedule is posted on the 15th, detailed information on remote participation for all sessions is published along with the session information. More details will follow shortly thereafter too.
Nick
Thanks for taking the time to post a comment.
It’s helpful to get insight from ICANN staff who are actually involved with the planning of meetings, as opposed to those of us who rely on you and your colleagues for the information ie. you are the “horse’s mouth” so to speak.
Regards
Michele