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

["Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce - both the proposed date and locale work for me. It would be helpful to 
nail this down as quickly as possible so that we can each lock in at the best 
fares. Note also that there are several hotels close to the dulles airport that 
we could use for our meetings.

Ross Rader, ross@xxxxxxxxxx
...sent via my mobile handset



-----Original Message-----
    From: "Bruce Tonkin"<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Sent: 23/01/06 22:37:35
    To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Subject: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
    
    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