ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:48:29 +1100
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcYgpRSRNI3QnFi5RnSd0YOIXo+5YQABHnGg
  • Thread-topic: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington

Hello Mawaki,

Are you suggesting sometime in the period Thurs 23 Feb 06 to Sunday Feb
26?

Regards,
Bruce


> 
> For any physical, ad hoc meeting, would it be too much to ask 
> for considering any day between Thursday and Sunday 
> inclusive; at least there is a chance I could make it. In the 
> first half of the week, there is none.
> Thanks
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:    Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for 
> Feb 2006 in 
> > Washington
> > Date:       Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:00 -0500
> > From:       Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To:         Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> >     
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruce...
> > 
> > the 21st of February would be a very difficult date to make as the 
> > previous week is the IGF (internet governance forum) in Geneve and 
> > many of us will be tied up in this as well as other related 
> forums for 
> > most of the week ending the 17th.
> > 
> > this would mean that many people would have to take additional time 
> > the following week away (i.e. 2 weeks in a row) from their 
> respective 
> > offices.
> > 
> > there is also a major telephony conference in barcelona the week 
> > preceeding the 21st whch some may be attending as well..
> > 
> > I would propose the 27th & 28th of February as good alternative 
> > dates..
> > a meeting in that week would still allow adequate time for 
> preparation 
> > (i.e. one full month) for wellington.
> > 
> > Ken Stubbs
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > 
> > >Hello All,
> > >
> > >The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the
> > agenda
> > >for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006.
> > >
> > >However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making 
> > >arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call.
> > >
> > >Purpose of meeting
> > >==================
> > >- using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff -
> > carry out
> > >further drafting work on a policy position
> > >- if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues 
> > >identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting -
> > carry
> > >out further work to complete constituency position statements and
> > begin
> > >to draft proposed policies
> > >- provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the 
> > >reports published so far
> > >
> > >Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues,
> > a
> > >physical meeting may assist progress.
> > >
> > >
> > >Location of meeting
> > >===================
> > >- the Washington region has several major gtld registries and
> > registrars
> > >- it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern
> > Hemisphere
> > >- we have local contacts that can assist with logistics
> > >
> > >
> > >Planning so far
> > >===============
> > >- current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006
> > >- locations under consideration include
> > >  -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself
> > >  -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington
> > >
> > >
> > >A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further
> > public
> > >comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage
> > with
> > >respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new
> > gtlds.
> > >Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further.
> > >
> > >A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper
> > in
> > >terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find
> > available
> > >accommodation at short notice.  This might be a better location
> > for the
> > >planning meetings.   Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may
> > be
> > >able to host a drafting meeting.
> > >
> > >It is possible that a combination of both might work best.  E.g
> > one
> > >morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the
> > time near
> > >the airport.
> > >
> > >
> > >Participation
> > >============
> > >- given that many Council members will be planning to attend the
> > ICANN
> > >meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time
> > or
> > >budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each 
> > >constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be 
> > >Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in 
> > >Washington.  I expect that most constituencies will have members
> > within
> > >a reasonable radius of Washington.
> > >
> > >
> > >Further input needed
> > >=====================
> > >
> > >I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues
> > around
> > >the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes
> > with
> > >other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences 
> > >regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the
> > city
> > >itself.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Bruce Tonkin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> 
> 




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>