RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That is good to hear.  I am sure that notice and invitations will be sent to
all appropriate parties for their participation.  

OK.  I was confused.  There are two meetings.  Yours is open, but according
to the following note from Marilyn (See
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00620.html),
there is another meeting we have concerns about:


"Separately, the Cross Constituency (CC) would like to meet with your
constituency to discuss views about wildcards. While we usually meet Tuesday
am., I understand that isn't good for you, Accordingly, we could suggest
Monday am. if we can jointly work on organizing an hour where whomever is
available from our groups can come to meet with you. This is really separate
from the public informational workshop, and I hope that is clear."




-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:36 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx';
'twomey@xxxxxxxxx'; 'ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings


On 2003-10-15 09:22:09 -0500, Jeff Neuman wrote:

> In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving
> openness and transparency.  It has come to our attention that the
> Business Constituency has attempted to arrange a private meeting
> during the Tunisia meeting with several other constituencies
> (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, etc.) to discuss
> the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services in
> general.  

The meeting that's being planned in cooperation with the ALAC is
supposed to be an information and discussion event that is open to
the public; there is no interest in excluding any individual
constituency.

-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/