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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce, all:

Sorry, I was in class and meetings the whole day. Yes, those dates
are good for me, just as the same days the previous week (16-19) and
the next week (2-5 March), etc.

Now, on the princple (agenda) of the meeting and the location: when
it was first proposed during our last conference call, I understood
that the purpose was for the councilors to come together and give an
impetus to the PDP work at hand in order to achieve significant
progress. I seem to have a problem with the agenda item: "provide an
opprtunity for any additional public comment on the reports published
so far", especially if the meeting is to take place in Washington DC,
which is far to be a neutral site. On the principle, I think the
email or web based public comment process that has been taking place
gives every one the opportunity to participate, on a rather equal
footing. Holding this meeting in D.C. and inviting those who have the
chance to be around to have more impact on the process seems to me
neither necessary, nor fair for those who will not have that
opportunity.

So, you may have the other councilors expressing their views on this,
or just drop that item from agenda.

Regards,

Mawaki

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Mawaki,
> 
> Are you suggesting sometime in the period Thurs 23 Feb 06 to Sunday
> Feb
> 26?
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
=== message truncated ===