Re: [bc-gnso] Concerns about the Hotel in Dakar

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I took a quick look at the ALAC report. Thanks Mikey! I enjoyed the pictures 
getting to relive some of the best moments of my stay at Les Alamadies.

The pictures and the brief descriptions surrounding them are accurate. I can't 
speak for the remainder of the report and really don't want to wade through the 
entire thing. I would describe my stay at Les Almadies like this:

On arrival, I was (not pleasantly) surprised. Fortunately it was dark so I was 
unable to see some of the more obvious physical failings of the hotel. 
Fortunately, there were others at the hotel to share our experiences. Tears 
from crying became tears of laughter as we related the many unpleasant details 
of our stay.

Breakfast was acceptable and I enjoyed each morning's crepes w/sugar and review 
of the prior night's "stories".

I would not stay at Les Almadies again, but neither would I write a letter to 
an African government minister complaining about issues that a US Private 
corporation is more responsible for.

The question we should be asking, and ICANN should be answering, is why would 
ICANN *ever* recommend a property in such a state of decline? If this were my 
first ICANN meeting, I'd have serious concerns about their ability to run a 
meeting, much less the DNS.

My 2 cents. Sorry for taking up list bandwidth.

On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:



Thanks to Mikey for the resurrection of the ALAC Report, and the 
[miscommunication] by ICANN staff to the Minister. The letter is not on the 
ICANN site because it is being 'readdressed'. I spoke to the Chair and Vice 
Chair last night. A different approach will take place including an apology to 
the Minister for the letter. ICANN will address the complaints, themselves.

First, I need to hear from the BC folks who did stay at that hotel.

I know that one member moved, and Chris and I had offered to have another BC 
member move into one of our rooms, but that didn't happen.
Can those of you who were at the hotel look at the report from ALAC, and give 
me [off list] your quick experience?

Re the letter:
--the complaint is about the lack of due diligence of ICANN staff, and once it 
surfaced, how the ICANN staff [meetings staff] handled the complaints/or did 
not.

For now, ignore the unfortunate staff letter to the Minister. That will be 
addressed by the Chair, with an apology.

However, the responsibility of ICANN to address their decisions and endorsement 
of the  hotel remains.

Do any of the affected BC members want to share any of your experiences?

I feel very badly about this for our members. As you all know, originally, 
Chris, Bene and I were at that hotel. When I moved us due to bad feedback, I 
had also alerted the members we knew who were there that we were moving 
ourselves. The cost of moving was rather excessive. But, I didn't realize that 
ICANN was putting people that they were funding at that hotel.  So, our 
outreach to members was limited accordingly.

There is a longer term issue in that ICANN continues to accept venue hotels 
with very limited room availability. We continue to find that the venue hotel 
is booked out before the host site even goes live, which is a future challenge. 
On that front,   Ayesha and I participated in the Meetings public session and 
raised several issues.

And, in that meeting, I did raise the concerns about the experiences of those 
at that hotel. I cannot tell you that the Board members present demonstrated 
much awareness of the serious nature of the concerns, not did they ask any 
questions to learn more.

BUT, the focus  we all take should be the ALAC report and any augmentation, or 
just general agreement, if that was also your experience.

As noted, there should not have been an ICANN staff letter to the Minister, and 
that is separately addressed. I am pleased that the Chair and Vice Chair are 
both now aware, and addressing that misfortunate misdirected staff 
communication.  We don't need to say more on that front. I was disappointed to 
hear that they were not briefed on site; but I gather that 'gap' is also now 
addressed with staff.

Accepting and endorsing hotels is the responsibility of ICANN staff -- and 
requires  due diligence, and accountability.

if you were at the hotel and want to share your concerns, please email me and 
copy Bene, who will compile and help me to generalize the experiences.

Marilyn Cade,
BC Chair

P.S. Mikey, thanks for putting the doc up.

==================

> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] a pretty scathing report from At Large about Hotel 
> Almendine in Dakar
> From: mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:55:07 -0600
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> i threw a copy up on my server -- here's the link;
>
> http://www.haven2.com/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf
>
> mikey
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Smith, Bill wrote:
>
> >
> > And now the report is no longer on the ICANN site.
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > hi all,
> >
> > i remember several of you mentioning that it was pretty rough going at the 
> > Alemendine. i had no idea *how* rough. here's an astonishing report from 
> > the At Large documenting the situation with a poll and pictures.
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/clay-to-guirassy-23nov11-en.pdf
> >
> > they raise some pretty interesting points -- and offer suggestions on how 
> > to move forward.
> >
> > m
> >
> > - - - - - - - - -
> > phone 651-647-6109
> > fax 866-280-2356
> > web http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
> > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> > etc.)
> >
> >
> >
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>
>