[council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Mawaki,

Are you suggesting sometime in the period Thurs 23 Feb 06 to Sunday Feb
26?

Regards,
Bruce


> 
> For any physical, ad hoc meeting, would it be too much to ask 
> for considering any day between Thursday and Sunday 
> inclusive; at least there is a chance I could make it. In the 
> first half of the week, there is none.
> Thanks
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: 	Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for 
> Feb 2006 in 
> > Washington
> > Date: 	Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:00 -0500
> > From: 	Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info>
> > To: 	Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> > 
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruce...
> > 
> > the 21st of February would be a very difficult date to make as the 
> > previous week is the IGF (internet governance forum) in Geneve and 
> > many of us will be tied up in this as well as other related 
> forums for 
> > most of the week ending the 17th.
> > 
> > this would mean that many people would have to take additional time 
> > the following week away (i.e. 2 weeks in a row) from their 
> respective 
> > offices.
> > 
> > there is also a major telephony conference in barcelona the week 
> > preceeding the 21st whch some may be attending as well..
> > 
> > I would propose the 27th & 28th of February as good alternative 
> > dates..
> > a meeting in that week would still allow adequate time for 
> preparation 
> > (i.e. one full month) for wellington.
> > 
> > Ken Stubbs
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> > 
> > >Hello All,
> > >
> > >The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the
> > agenda
> > >for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006.
> > >
> > >However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making 
> > >arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call.
> > >
> > >Purpose of meeting
> > >==================
> > >- using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff -
> > carry out
> > >further drafting work on a policy position
> > >- if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues 
> > >identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting -
> > carry
> > >out further work to complete constituency position statements and
> > begin
> > >to draft proposed policies
> > >- provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the 
> > >reports published so far
> > >
> > >Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues,
> > a
> > >physical meeting may assist progress.
> > >
> > >
> > >Location of meeting
> > >===================
> > >- the Washington region has several major gtld registries and
> > registrars
> > >- it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern
> > Hemisphere
> > >- we have local contacts that can assist with logistics
> > >
> > >
> > >Planning so far
> > >===============
> > >- current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006
> > >- locations under consideration include
> > >  -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself
> > >  -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington
> > >
> > >
> > >A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further
> > public
> > >comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage
> > with
> > >respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new
> > gtlds.
> > >Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further.
> > >
> > >A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper
> > in
> > >terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find
> > available
> > >accommodation at short notice.  This might be a better location
> > for the
> > >planning meetings.   Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may
> > be
> > >able to host a drafting meeting.
> > >
> > >It is possible that a combination of both might work best.  E.g
> > one
> > >morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the
> > time near
> > >the airport.
> > >
> > >
> > >Participation
> > >============
> > >- given that many Council members will be planning to attend the
> > ICANN
> > >meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time
> > or
> > >budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each 
> > >constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be 
> > >Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in 
> > >Washington.  I expect that most constituencies will have members
> > within
> > >a reasonable radius of Washington.
> > >
> > >
> > >Further input needed
> > >=====================
> > >
> > >I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues
> > around
> > >the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes
> > with
> > >other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences 
> > >regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the
> > city
> > >itself.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Bruce Tonkin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> 
>