<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi<div><br></div><div>Could we please drop ncuc-discuss from the Cc, as it’s really an external discussion and many of the folks replying are not ncuc members so the list moderator has to keep asking me whether to approve etc. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks </div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 26, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Marilia Maciel <<a href="mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com">mariliamaciel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Dear Joana and Nnenna, these are very good points. <div><br></div><div>Thanks for starting to share ideas about participation in the event. According to the map Adam sent, the maximum capacity of the auditorium seems to be 1.500, but I imagine we need to save room for ground staff as well. Regardless of the exact number, which I think we will know for sure tomorrow, my impression is that in general people seem to be ok with a fixed number of participants per stakeholder group. Please, correct me if I am wrong.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please propose new ideas or comment on the ones below:</div>
<div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div>- Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com.<br>
</div><div>- First come first served. People who register would be accepted until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance<br></div><div>
- Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and developed regions, presenting contributions to the public consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the above.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding format on the meeting and taking into account that we will have about 10h of actual work (there is lunch, there is opening session, etc), do you think we should have two separate tracks working in parallel (one for each agenda issue)? Would that optimize our time?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the inputs.</div><div>Marília</div></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adam Peake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto;">Hi Joana,<br>
<br>
Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But will mention visas as they are always a hassle.<br>
<br>
Numbers will be "interesting". <<a href="http://www.transamerica.com.br/en/saopaulo/eventos/salas-e-capacidades.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.transamerica.com.br/en/saopaulo/eventos/salas-e-capacidades.aspx</a>><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Adam<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Adam,<br>
><br>
> Thanks for this.<br>
><br>
> A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA).<br>
><br>
> About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Joana<br>
><br>
> On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks Marilia<br>
><br>
> Hi everyone...<br>
><br>
> Any comments on Marilia's email?<br>
><br>
> If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated?<br>
><br>
> The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation?<br>
><br>
> Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time).<br>
><br>
> Adam<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Dear all,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > - Committee work plan (roadmap)<br>
> ><br>
> > - Participation criteria for the meeting<br>
> ><br>
> > - Meeting agenda<br>
> ><br>
> > - Meeting format<br>
> ><br>
> > - Kind of expected outcomes<br>
> ><br>
> > - Public consultation<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Best<br>
> ><br>
> > Marília<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade <<a href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Joana, thanks so much.<br>
> ><br>
> > Adding in a few more :<br>
> ><br>
> > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions?<br>
> > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access?<br>
> ><br>
> > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T<br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: Joana Varon <<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>><br>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24<br>
> > To: <<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>>; <<a href="mailto:ncsg-discuss@listserv.syr.edu">ncsg-discuss@listserv.syr.edu</a>>; <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>><br>
> > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC<br>
> > before 27th meeting<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Dear all,<br>
> ><br>
> > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > * Is it going to be invitation only?<br>
> > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited?<br>
> > * There will be travel support?<br>
> > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions?<br>
> > * There will be remote participation?<br>
> > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented?<br>
> > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival)<br>
> > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most.<br>
> ><br>
> > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups.<br>
> ><br>
> > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post)<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > +1? Suggestions for more questions?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > best<br>
> ><br>
> > joana<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > --<br>
> ><br>
> > Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
> > @joana_varon<br>
> > PGP 0x016B8E73<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > __</div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>