Public comments on Consolidated Meetings Strategy Proposal

[Donna Austin <donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ARI Registry Services welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Consolidated 
Meeting Strategy Proposal. Being located in Australia we understand the 
challenges associated in finding a balance in identifying meeting locations 
that improve operational efficiency without impacting regional diversity.

The strategy for 2014, 2015 and 2016 is agreeable to ARI. We appreciate that 
most members of the ICANN community would expect our reasoning to be purely 
based on the fact that a location in the Asia Pacific region is slated to host 
one meeting per year and that this is a great advantage to us given our 
location; however, I would add that most major cities in the Asia Pacific 
region require travel time from Australia roughly equivalent to travelling from 
the US East Coast to Europe. It is also true that for the remaining two 
meetings held in each year we believe we are disadvantaged, more so than 
others, by our location.

The question of whether regional diversity is being impacted by the proposal 
needs to be considered in the context of the composition of ICANN's geographic 
regions[1].

*         Africa - 54 countries

*         Asia/Australia/Pacific -73

*         Europe - 75

*         Latin American/Caribbean Islands - 33

*         North America - 8

*         Total = 243
The number of countries or territories located in Europe and the 
Asia/Australia/Pacific regions combined represents approximately 60% of the 
total number of countries and territories. Considered in this context, the 
allocation of the meeting locations over the next 3 years can be justified. 
While it will be argued that the proposed schedule seriously disadvantages the 
current majority of ICANN meeting participants from North America, it must be 
recognized that the introduction of new gTLDs stands to considerably change the 
composition of meeting participation, given that 675 applications have been 
submitted from Europe and 303 from Asia Pacific. The meeting proposal suggests 
that this potential evolution has been taken into account and that a priority 
for stakeholder engagement is providing an opportunity for new entrants to 
attend and participate in ICANN meetings.

This is not to say that participation from the other regions is any less 
important, but based on the numbers, we believe the proposal will have a 
positive impact on regional diversity. In the short term, smaller regionally 
focused meetings could be held in the three other regions during the 2014-2016 
period. A longer term solution would be to change the rotation in the next 
three year period 2017 to 2020, to reflect engagement and participation 
strategies at that time.

We appreciate the extraordinary challenges that ICANN's Meeting Team encounters 
in finding and securing suitable venues under the current process. We agree 
with the nominated criteria to be used to select consolidated meeting 
locations. With regard to holding the first meeting of each year in two cities 
in Asia Pacific; and the second meeting of the year in two cities in Europe we 
recommend that this not be restricted to two cities at this time. Understanding 
that favourable multi-year contracts is an element of the strategy and 
restricting locations to two cities assists in meeting this, we also note that 
ICANN will identify the best facilities in the world for conducting an ICANN 
meeting. If this exercise results in more than two suitable cities in Asia 
Pacific and Europe then consideration should be given to expanding the cities 
from two to three to meet the proposed 3 year term.

On a related, but separate note, we would add that some consideration needs to 
be given to providing space and time for informal interaction among the 
constituency groups and SOs and ACs. Using Toronto as an example, the GAC and 
ccNSO meeting rooms were located some considerable distance from where GNSO 
meetings were taking place. This resulted in less opportunity for informal 
dialogue, which is often very productive in progressing issues. Meetings were 
being scheduled during coffee and tea breaks and facilities being provided 
within the meeting rooms, rather than in a common outside location, also 
reduces the opportunity for informative conversations. We appreciate this is 
not an issue which is strictly in the purview of the Meetings Team, but we 
think it is worth raising as a possible solution to calls from the community 
that there is not enough time during the meeting for all groups to meet.

ARI welcomes the pragmatic approach outlined in the Consolidated Meetings 
Strategy Proposal and does not believe that in seeking to improve operational 
efficiency, the strategy negatively impacts regional diversity. On the 
contrary, we believe that the strategy will have a positive impact on regional 
diversity and provide greater predictability for participants, and also ICANN's 
budget.

Regards

Donna


[cid:image001.png@01CDC41D.92F9C2F0]DONNA AUSTIN
Policy & Industry Affairs Officer

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +61 3 9866 1779
E  donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

ARI Registry Services is an evolution of AusRegistry International.
Follow us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/ausregistryint>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.




________________________________

[1] http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm