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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>