[council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington

[Thomas Keller]

Tony,

I don't understand the cynicism. Isn't it all about maximizing
the participation?

Best,

tom

Am 24.01.2006 schrieb Anthony Harris:
> How about having it in Buenos Aires ?
> Cant think of a city with lower overall prices...
> 
> Tony Harris
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ute Decker" <Ute.Decker at ifpi.org>
> To: "Thomas Keller" <tom at schlund.de>; "Bruce Tonkin" 
> <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:33 AM
> Subject: RE: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in 
> Washington
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >Bruce, Tom, all,
> >
> >I will likely not attend in DC, but could of course attend a meeting in
> >Frankfurt. No objections to 21 Feb (and around).
> >
> >Ute
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom at schlund.de]
> >Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45
> >To: Bruce Tonkin
> >Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in
> >Washington
> >
> >Bruce, all,
> >
> >how about relocating the meeting to Frankfurt. I haven't ask but I'm
> >sure DENIC would certainly provide us with a meeting accomodation.
> >The DENIC headquarter is about 15 Minutes away from the airport and
> >in walking reach of several adequate hotels.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >tom
> >
> >Am 24.01.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Gruss,
> >
> >tom
> >
> >(__)
> >(OO)_____
> >(oo)    /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
> > | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
> > w w w  w
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w