[atrt2] Meeting in Beijing

[Brian Cute]

Avri,

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the team should not make plans for
Beijing, only that the nature and amount of the work could impact both the
amount of time we need (1 or more days) and the timing of the meeting
(beginning or end of ICANN meeting).  In my opinion the team should meet
in Beijing, even if full attendance is not achievable, as long as members
who cannot travel to Beijing could join the meeting remotely.

Brian

On 2/23/13 12:23 PM, "Avril Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I agree with your idea of what we should do in LA in terms of initiating
>the streams of work and preparing for Beijing.
>
>However, Beijing is soon, so plans really do need to be made one way or
>another.  While many of us might plan to go to the Beijing meeting
>anyway, I am sure there are people who might not already be planning this
>trip.
>
>avri
>
>On 23 Feb 2013, at 08:03, Brian Cute wrote:
>
>> In addition to discussing dates to meet, we should also discuss the
>>nature of the work we envision in Beijing.  While interaction with ICANN
>>and the ICANN community will be an important element of the work, the
>>Review Team may or may not be in a position to interact effectively with
>>the Community and ICANN at the Beijing meeting.  Interaction requires
>>structure and preparation.  I would imagine that in our face-to-face
>>meeting in Los Angeles that the Team will identify work streams, working
>>groups and other activities.  It may be worthwhile to discuss how we
>>envision advancing the work in Beijing and that could help inform when,
>>and for how long, we should meet in Beijing.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Carlos Raúl G. <crg at isoc-cr.org> wrote:
>> I can only fully commit to the options b) and/or c), as I cannot
>>physically make it before the 7th.
>> Options d) and e) as second best
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> 
>> SUTEL, Costa Rica
>> 
>> +506 4000 0010 Oficina
>> +506 8335 2487 Móvil
>> +506 2215 6821 Fax
>> 
>> El 23/02/2013, a las 00:36, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> escribió:
>> 
>> > I agree with Avri both in that I can live with any of the options but
>>see some advantage in (d).
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > -drc
>> >
>> > On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for starting the conversation.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with the reasoning and can live with any of the options.
>> >> My preference is for (d).
>> >>
>> >> I like the idea of getting a day in before, i.e. bracketing the
>>ICANN meeting with our meeting.
>> >>
>> >> avri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 22 Feb 2013, at 18:18, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> To kick off the discussion, Since a large number of our group will
>>be
>> >>> in Beijing, I don't think that we can afford not to meet there. We
>> >>> are starting far later than originally planned, but still trying to
>> >>> make the original deadline of 31-Dec. I think a 2nd face-to-face
>> >>> meeting near the start of our work is valuable, so it is either
>> >>> Beijing, or moving the entire group to somewhere else very close (in
>> >>> time) to the Beijing meeting.
>> >>>
>> >>> If we are looking for two days (which seems reasonable to me), there
>> >>> seem to be several potential options from the two days preceding the
>> >>> start of many meetings (Fri Apr 4, Sat Apr 5) and the three days
>> >>> after (Fri Apr 12, Sat Apr 13, Sun Apr 14). Note that some of us are
>> >>> scheduled for other meetings on Sat, Apr 5 (I am), but probably not
>> >>> enough to rule out that day.
>> >>>
>> >>> If we were to meet only after the ICANN week, my inclination would
>>be
>> >>> to make it Sat-Sun to give people just a bit of time to clear their
>> >>> minds and get ready.
>> >>>
>> >>> So the options seems to be:
>> >>>
>> >>> a) 4, 5 (Before)
>> >>> b) 12, 13 (After with no break)
>> >>> c) 13, 14 (After with a break)
>> >>> d) 5, 12 (Split with no break)
>> >>> e) 5, 13 (Split with a break)
>> >>>
>> >>> I can live with any of these options but have a preference for a or
>>c.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alan
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> atrt2 mailing list
>> >>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> atrt2 mailing list
>> >> atrt2 at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > atrt2 mailing list
>> > atrt2 at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2