RE: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am pleased to "hear" that, Michael. Over the holiday, I read all the
transcripts, and I was concerned about the discussions about changes in
meetings. I recall from Luxembourg that there were also suggestions of
"individual" consultations with those who don't come to ICANN to  help to
determine how to redefine ICANN's meetings. 

While that is a worthwhile objective, we need to strive to meet the needs of
those who invest in ICANN even as we try to expand opportunities for
participation beyond the present set of participants.  

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 9:46 PM
To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference

Marilyn:

I think there may be some confusion. The specific topic of discussion is
the selection of the location of the 4th Quarter 2006 regional meeting. 

Best regards,

Michael 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:37 PM
To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference


Dear Mike

I am concerned to see a discussion of 
"board meetings Committee recommendations regarding ICANN meetings. 

There has been no consultation with the constituencies of the GNSO or
the Council, that I have been able to participate in. I am perhaps
missing something, since I was away from Dec. 19 - 30, and perhaps you
were able to conduct a thorough review and comment process in that time
frame. I apologize. I was only online once a day and could have missed
this opportunity.

I recall the discussion from the transcription, and in my view, this is
a discussion without consideration of full input and facts regarding the
needs of all the players. But, I trusted that there would be a valid
outreach effort. I recall that there was some discussion of "individual"
comments, perhaps presented anonymously.

When we "build" organizations, and processes, we have to be careful to
take into account the full range of work needed.

I am very aware of the risks and cautions of the ITU's approach to
regional meetings and inputs. I am concerned that ICANN is getting
guidance to follow that very flawed process, in this stage of ICANN's
development.

But, perhaps I'll see a detailed consultation plan from the meetings
committee, and thus, my concerns will be addressed by the process of
consultation. 

I count on that.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:52 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: [council] ICANN Board Agenda - 10-Jan-2006 Teleconference

Dear Council Members:

Please be advised that the following agenda has been posted on the ICANN
website regarding the upcoming 10-Jan-2006 Board teleconference, see
http://www.icann.org/minutes/


    *  Consideration of .UA Redelegation Request
    * Consideration of .CX Redelegation Request
    * Extensions of Deadlines for gTLD Agreement Renewal Processes
    * Board Meetings Committee's Recommendation regarding ICANN Meetings
    * Board Conflict of Interest Committee's Recommendation Regarding
Proposed COI Questionnaire
    * Update on Discussions on Proposed VeriSign Settlement
    * Discussion regarding Board Participation in New GTLD Policy
Development Process
    * Other Business

Should anyone have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage