Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce, all,

how about relocating the meeting to Frankfurt. I haven't ask but I'm
sure DENIC would certainly provide us with a meeting accomodation.
The DENIC headquarter is about 15 Minutes away from the airport and
in walking reach of several adequate hotels.

Best,

tom

Am 24.01.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w