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

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Mon Feb 6 02:39:46 UTC 2017

Daniel, you may be interested in the following document which outlines the principles for ICANN CCWGs which was recently adopted by the GNSO and ccNSO: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf. Some ICANN CCWGs meet F2F during an ICANN meeting either to continue its deliberations and/or to update the community on its activities, but for such meetings there is usually not more than 90 minutes available as there are a lot of competing activities. In recent past, the transition related CCWGs have met F2F just prior or even outside an ICANN meetings, but those activities were driven by an external timeline and as such should be considered the exception rather than the rule. CCWGs like other ICANN WGs are expected to conduct most of their work through teleconferences and mailing list deliberations. I hope this is helpful.

Best regards,


On 2/4/17, 3:27 AM, "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.

More information about the Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list