Within the last 24 hours, we received an unclassified report from the United States’ Department of State related to the Kenyatta International Conference Center, the venue for our upcoming meeting.
The types of threats outlined in that communication are difficult to assess. ICANN is now reaching out to different parties in Kenya and elsewhere to better assess the situation, and of course we will share any further information with you.
In the most transparent manner possible, ICANN will continue to share information as it becomes available with you – expect further updates on community mailing lists, in this blog, and on the ICANN Nairobi meeting page.
More detailed information on the subject of security is available on the ICANN Nairobi meeting site:
- Further details on this specific issue is accessible at at http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/security-information-11feb10-en.htm.
- Additional security and logistics information related to the Nairobi meeting may be found at http://nbo.icann.org/security.
- Two teleconferences with the community were held to discuss security and logistics and the recordings of those calls (including extensive Q&A) have been published at http://nbo.icann.org/security-teleconferences.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Nick Wood 02.16.10 at 1:17 am
Is it ICANN’s role “to preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet” or to support the Government of Kenya and tourism in that country? If there were to be a devastating attack on the Nairobi meeting, how would ICANN survive? Is it reckless, brave or a political or financial necessity for ICANN to continue with a meeting in Nairobi when there are options that do not risk the safety of key staff, Board, the community and, of course, the future we are all investing in? No easy answers to any of this.
Nigel Roberts 02.16.10 at 6:38 am
The issue is more complex that that ….
In the light of the security advice, both pro- and con-, ICANN made a decision to go ahead with the meeting.
This didn’t affect me personally, since based on information and advice received early on, I long ago I decided we would, with great reluctance, forgo this one.
But I don’t criticise anyone for going. Nor do I criticise anyone for cancelling.
The thing is, there are a lessons to be learned from this.
ICANN is not the UN, and it’s not a Heads of State meeting. Nearly every participant is a private sector actor (with the obvious exception of the GAC members).
This means that the obligation to attend is less. Imagine a Prime Minister avoiding a Commonwealth conference — unthinkable.
However, despite official pronouncements to the contrary, the obligation on the Government of the host country is not the same as it would be to an official state visitor from a foreign country.
ICANN is a private, foreign, company, albeit one that is of some importance to the development of communications in Africa.
And a commercial companies have a duty of care to its employees.
And if someone is hurt or worse ( whether ICANN staff or a participant), and his or her employers had sent them in the face of advice of a specific, named, threat — guess where the tort lawyers would be looking … that’s right, at the deep pockets of their employer.
I wish those who are going, a safe journey and a successful meeting, and my thoughts will be with you every day.