[gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group call next week

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Thu Jan 19 17:31:43 UTC 2017


If I may follow up, an additional benefit of not making decisions on a
single call is that it makes it easier for participants who may have
difficulties expressing their views during a meeting (because of a lack of
confidence in their English speaking abilities for instance) to submit
inputs in writing in between meetings.

Best
Mathieu

-----Message d'origine-----
De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
De la part de Paul Keating
Envoyé : jeudi 19 janvier 2017 14:11
À : Susan Payne; George Kirikos; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Objet : Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group
call next week

For what its worth, my 2 Cents:

We created the different timing for the call (which I supported and
continue to support).  However, I would like to see some indication of the
number of people on those calls.  This is not with the idea of cancelling
them.  Rather, we might want to adopt a policy of NOT reaching definitive
decisions on EITHER of the calls (Asia vs non-Asia) so that those unable
to participate in either can have input prior to making group decisions.
The alternative would be to solicit group email comments on specific
points pending decision.  I realize this may make things more complicated
but it has the attraction of ensuring maximum participation formulating
consensus-driven decisions.

Paul

On 1/19/17, 11:09 AM, "Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of susan.payne at valideus.com> wrote:

>Hi George - I think that was my comment so thanks for pointing that out.
>I did not recall the cancellation for INTA but with that in mind if a
>similar large number of people would be missing the call for NamesCon I
>agree it seems reasonable to cancel.  I do think it does depend on the
>volume of participants for whom the event is a factor (regardless of
>which event it happens to be).  In this case we need to take into
>account that this is the call scheduled to be more convenient for those
>in AsPac timezones, who maybe won't be going to NamesCon (I have no
>idea whether they will or not).  The conflict equally doesn't affect me
>since I can't join a call at 4am, so my absence from the call has
>nothing to do with NamesCon.
>
>Susan Payne
>Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
>
>E: susan.payne at valideus.com
>D: +44 20 7421 8255
>T: +44 20 7421 8299
>M: +44 7971 661175
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>Sent: 19 January 2017 00:50
>To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working
>Group call next week
>
>During today's call, some folks felt that the call scheduled for next
>week should still be held, despite some folks being unable due to their
>attendance at the large NamesCon event, as "there are always some folks
>who can't make it." However, I'd like to remind people that back in May
>2016 we cancelled a working group call due to INTA having their Orlando
>meeting:
>
>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-May/000291.html
>
>So, it would only be fair, in my opinion, that next week's call be
>cancelled. [the conflict doesn't affect me personally, by the way; I
>can make it next week]
>
>If it's not cancelled, then the next time there's a conflict with an
>INTA meeting, we should not change our own schedule to accommodate
>those going to INTA events.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>> I will also be at NamesCon.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2017, at 21:23, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Those Members who were present at the Working Group meeting held
>>earlier today agreed to go ahead with the meeting scheduled for next
>>Wednesday. In view, however, of the fact that quite a few Members will
>>be traveling to NamesCon at that time, coupled with its being the
>>first meeting time that is rotating to 0400 UTC, it will be helpful if
>>we can get a sense of how many Members will not be able to attend the
>>meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> As such, please take a moment to reply to me if you know you will NOT
>> be on the call next Wednesday at 0400 UTC ­ note that there¹s no need
>> to Reply All or reply at all if you plan to be on the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list