… that really do a good job of summarizing the security situation and the dilemmas it poses.

Leading off with Michele Neylon’s post which explains his reasons for skipping this meeting and the need for thoughtful discussion (comments are really good on all these posts by the way)

http://www.mneylon.com/blog/archives/2010/02/13/personal-reflections-on-icann-nairobi/

Maria Farrel posts a very balanced/detailed note about the situation here (Rod Beckstrom, ICANN CEO, posted in the comments)

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/12/14645/

Kieren McCarthy (until recently the ICANN staff person responsible for remote participation) posted a followup here — which really does a great job of turning lemons into lemonade in my view by saying that this may be the event that really pushes the remote-participation capability to new levels

http://kierenmccarthy.com/2010/02/12/why-icann-nairobi-may-be-a-blessing-in-disguise/

Nick Ashton-Hart (current ICANN staff person in charge of remote participation) posted this in the comments to Michele’s post;

“Thanks Michele for your thoughtful and balanced post. I, too, would like to echo the call that people respect each other’s choices about attending or not attending the meeting. I think that characterising the choices of others in negative terms doesn’t really benefit anyone.

We are working very hard internally on remote participation for this meeting; I’m the overall coordinator of the effort. I think everyone will find that things RP-related at Nairobi take quite a leap forward from previous meetings.

You will find that when the schedule is posted on the 15th, detailed information on remote participation for all sessions is published along with the session information. More details will follow shortly thereafter too.”

I’m still on the fence — read those posts for the reasons why I’m still leaning towards going.  But we’ll see…