Re: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

["Maureen Cubberley" <m.cubberley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

I agree with this approach - a conference bridge instead of a public forum, per 
se.

Q. Would we set up the bridge during the Washington DC meeting, or at a time 
prior to that, as it is my understanding that the meeting is to be a working 
session?

Q. You wrote "and also please
identify any particular papers where you think it would be beneficial
for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond to
questions.  I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with this
in mind.  "

Kindly indicate where the papers, as submitted by the authors, have been 
collected and may be viewed.

Thanks,
Maureen

 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruce Tonkin 
  To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 5:00 AM
  Subject: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and 
Saturday 25 Feb


  Hello All,

  As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
  Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy
  development process.  The Committee is of the whole Council, but where a
  Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from
  their constituency to participate.   The constituency/Council member
  should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to the
  meeting.

  I am hoping that Olof will be able to at least have a draft Initial
  Report that summarises the constituency input, the papers that have been
  submitted in response to our call for papers, and the public comments
  submitted via the ICANN website.

  The aim of the meeting will be to consider this report and identify
  areas of consensus.

  We are essentially operating under the provisions of section 8(b) and
  8(c), of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws.

  One thing we did not cover in the Council call, was whether to hold an
  open public forum.  Given that there were a few Council members that
  were against this idea, and also given the additional logistics and
  costs of arranging such a forum, I suggest instead that we follow up on
  our call for papers on 3 January 2006:
  http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm .  In that
  call for papers we stated: "Received papers will be considered for oral
  presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via scheduled
  conference calls with the GNSO Council."

  We could simply set up a conference bridge to allow selected authors of
  papers to call-in, and where cost is an issue we can call-out to
  appropriate people.  

  Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and also please
  identify any particular papers where you think it would be beneficial
  for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond to
  questions.  I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with this
  in mind.   Glen can then contact the authors and see who may be
  available  (we may have to schedule time appropriate to the time zones
  of the authors).

  I think it is important to ensure future substantial contributions to
  the policy development process, that the Committee gives significant
  attention to considering these submissions - and doesn't simply rely on
  reading a staff summary.


  Regards,
  Bruce Tonkin