[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] F2f planned in Copenhagen ?

Nadira Alaraj nadira.araj at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 03:05:04 UTC 2017


Whether the F2F meeting formal or informal it is important to keep the
recordings for these meeting. Being the CCWG a big group it is not always
possible to all be in person to all ICANN public meetings. Much better to
provide the remote participants.

On 6 Feb 2017 04:39, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

Usually there are sign-up rooms available, but these rooms do not have not
any AV or remote participation, nor do these meetings appear on the
schedule. However, if you are just looking for a room to have an informal
conversation with other CCWG members / participants that may be around, I’m
happy to explore the options. Just let me know the preferred time/date and
I can see what is available.



Best regards,



Marika



*From: *<ccwg-auctionproceeds-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of elliot noss <
enoss at tucows.com>
*Date: *Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 7:54 AM
*To: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
*Cc: *"ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] F2f planned in Copenhagen ?



if many of us are there, maybe it would be useful to convene otherwise in
an additional slot for a more casual conversation. marika, do you know who
will be there and who won’t?



EN



On Feb 4, 2017, at 6:08 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:



Hello,



I would have easily added a +1 to a longer face 2 face meeting as well.
However as I understand it, we are only trying to take advantage of the
ICANN58 meeting hence this is not a meeting specifically planned for us
which means not all members will be available physically.



I would suggest we do a check on how many people will be present physically
and if the number is significant (paying attention to community diversity)
then we could proceed with a prolonged meeting. Otherwise it will be
difficult for remote participation to remain active beyond 90min (120min
max).



That said, we also need to note that an extension could also have
implications on the schedule of various communities who have already
prepared their agenda in a certain way. We need to avoid conflicts of
schedule as much as possible.



Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos



On Feb 4, 2017 10:27, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:

On 2017-02-02 19:13, Marika Konings wrote:

Hi Daniel,

Staff has tentatively requested Wednesday from 15.15 – 16.45 local
time for a CCWG-Auction Proceeds meeting. It is up to the CCWG to
decide whether or not you want to make use of that slot, but it is
easier to cancel the slot than to request one at a later date.


I'll be there as well.

I'm a bit surprised by seeing only 90 minutes allocated for a f2f. I hardly
see how we can discuss, let alone resolve, more than a couple of issues in
this timeframe, especially since it's our first f2f, so lots of "get to
know each other" overhead.

Or maybe I'm confused and this f2f will not be a working group meeting
(making progress on our issue list) but more of a report to the community
kind of event ?


Related to ICANN WG f2f, I have a few questions.

So far, I haven't seen any dramatic difference in the way this group is run
vs. a W3C working group developping a technical specification. We also have
teleconfs, we have email exchanges (and documents being edited in
parallel), but all our WG f2f are at least one full day, sometimes 2 or 3
days long. And they usually have 3 of those per year (besides those held at
our plenary). IETF is similar I think.

The rationale is that f2f, given their higher communication bandwidth, are
where most progress are made in resolving issues, and also that of course
it costs a lot of money to gather 20 experts in one location, so better use
their time effectively.

Maybe there is a difference between a f2f run as part of an ICANN plenary,
and an isolated WG f2f ?













Best regards,

Marika

On 2/2/17, 12:07 PM, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield at w3.org> wrote:

    With ICANN 58 a couple of months away, I suppose that like me, people
    need to arrange travel (or not) to Denmark.

    Do we already know if we're going to meet, and which day ?
    And if we don't know yet, when will we know ?

    Thanks.


_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds



_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/attachments/20170206/cc19b5cf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list