[Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] F2f planned in Copenhagen ?
emailsignet at mailcan.com
Sat Feb 4 14:42:36 UTC 2017
I do not support a longer f2f nor more than one session; many in
Copenhagen will be there with other committed agendas already. I
would be interested to know the agenda anyway of the arranged 1 1/2
meeting. If its not a public meeting I suggest it could take the
place of the fortnightly call, with remote participation for those
not able to travel.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017, at 02:08 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> 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,
>>> 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 ?
>> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
> Ccwg-auctionproceeds at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds