<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Extra day
- To: David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Extra day
- From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:56:22 +0000
- Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@xxxxxx>, Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=from:cc:in-reply-to:to:references:date:message-id:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=Tu6iD7AbAawQVKsgbmLCpTrmFBOvO2350HcUmOybrAU=; b=fAVHOMERu41n0C4/RU1t6MkpQR/INNchSV9QPuTq6II6sKFAHIDI32GDR2Ax4wIZn 0JWehQwfKe+0V/edqKg45PQ/pA8eiqot5EBgDsqnXgDGa0qHMLGa/njRUsJK23UHW iJEli6Mz7ZPWGW0fdtwIsUAAyE+fSO2V8836YsTxo=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; d=toast.net; s=smartermail; h=received:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:references:to:in-reply-to:cc:from; b=gZGtDnp/tc8z+vAdHtMKvdkZ+9DLoNj+OcNcVjCpT8Tir+NUFGLpZt4qB/vTBVKw/ L9lKzZecdbIN6aWtPtdw/BY1H0A2R2zukecT/CC12ttUVeKtaVY63tzPpFqRvOmwE hs//PHbvem8Fkg4mthpON8MDz2FgGhi+8zvijxops=
- In-reply-to: <34A06B09-C063-444A-91E7-24F5D0C79AFC@davecake.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C6749782-C4A3-4CDB-A915-2B3A166E6350@nic.br> <34A06B09-C063-444A-91E7-24F5D0C79AFC@davecake.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree with David.
The CCWG Accountability meetings we have had prior to general ICANN meetings
have been totally separate affairs from the general meeting itself. They would
be necessary regardless of whether ICANN even had a general meeting. I
appreciate being able to combine a working group meeting with a general meeting
as it saves me both time and money in transport costs. I support the extra
meeting day as proposed.
Ed
Sent from my iPhone
> On 10 Mar 2016, at 13:29, 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
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|