Re: [council] Extra day

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>]

Actually, scheduling a meeting while people that could otherwise attend 
remotely but since they are travelling to arrive the next day they will in 
airport lines and lounges could be worse. I don't recall whether we have formal 
black-out dates where no WG meetings besides the ones in the formal schedule 
can be scheduled, but if not we should consider having them, and allowing for 
some travel days to get there and back. 

Rubens

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:26 PM, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I'll repeat my comments again. The F2F WG meetings are not part of the 
> meeting proper,do not replace WG  meetings or other policy work at meetings 
> (they are generally closed, do not involve interaction with other groups, 
> etc), and should be regarded as an extension of inter-sessional work that 
> simply happens to occur with along side meeting for practical reasons. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 10 Mar 2016, at 1:00 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Since there was not enough time during our wrap-session to discuss this, 
>> I'll write my thoughts on this for Donna, Volker and the council to consider
>> 
>> I fully support Donna's position that we should reject this idea and focus 
>> most days of a B meeting on policy. If ICANN is also doing outreach, those 
>> tracks could run side-by-side instead of outreach taking an amount of days 
>> (even if only 1) and leaving the others day to policy. 
>> 
>> I also have to take exception with adding extra days; for those traveling 
>> from distant regions, travel affordability is tied to booking flights and 
>> hotels many months in advance. When days are added before or after a 
>> meeting, what happens is that those that already booked end up either 
>> incurring in costs or missing the added sessions. One of the good outcomes 
>> of the new meeting strategy  was we committing to a fixed schedule, and this 
>> is now at risk. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Rubens
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>