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

["Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree on both of Bill's questions.  Although after hearing all the horror 
stories of what everyone went through at that hotel, I think Les Almadies 
should be re-named Les Maladies.



Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670


________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Bill Smith
Cc: bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Concerns about the Hotel in Dakar

Bill, I fully support your assessment of the 'right question'.

Your response was very helpful.

> From: bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:56:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Concerns about the Hotel in Dakar
>
>
> 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.)
> >
> >
>
>