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

[elliot noss]

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds <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/20170204/c40f07c2/attachment.html>