[council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 24 18:23:19 UTC 2006
I've been following the discussions about logistics with interest.
And I've done some preliminary examination of options, and can look into
other settings, as I did with
Glen's help for the Council sponsored Amsterdam event on the StratPlan.
However, of some urgency re the policy work, I have a few thoughts about
advancing the work itself, which I'd like to raise, so that we can progress
as much as feasible...
On the last Council call, I know that we all gave serious thought to how
best to put Council resources toward addressing the policy issues related to
the .com agreement, taking into account the need to move promptly and
As I read the schedule, we will receive the Staff Manager's Issues Report on
or about Feb. 1.
I propose that Council do several of the other tasks in parallel, such as
asking the ICANN General Counsel to respond as to whether the policy topics
that we have requested the Issues Report cover, at a minimum, are within
ICANN's mandate. That is one of the required steps.
On the call on 2/6, Bruce, could it be feasible to do something like the
1) Discuss the Issues Report
2) Hear from the General Counsel as above
3) Recommend any modifications to it and approve those
4) Remind Constituencies they have 10 days to appoint their responsible
party to prepare constituency report. NOTE: The Constituencies can actually
start that process now, and could come to the 2/7 meeting with their
5) Vote: whether to create a Task Force or work as a Committee of the whole.
Discussion of 4) Given the need to advance this work, and the linkage into
the larger PDP on new gTLD policy, as well as renewal of other registries, I
propose to Council that this be done as a committee of the whole.
6) Discuss and approve a Terms of Reference for the work.
Discussion of 5) The Terms of Reference could be drafted and presented
to the Council on 1/31--with the change of dates, does this need to be
7) Consider whether to appoint up to three experts to support this work, per
the bylaws, and discuss this further on the call-we could offer suggestions
on line before the call regarding the kinds of additional expertise that may
be needed, if any.
8) Approve a working session of Council and liaisons [and experts, if any
are appointed], for the week of February 20 [date to be determined, of
course, as well as logistics].
Discussion of 7) This meeting could be divided into two working parts: Part
a) Focused on the policy issues of the .com agreement Part b) Focused on the
work of the larger new gTLD policy process. Part c) Open forum with dial in
and public comments.
I do recognize that not all councilors could attend in person, so the
meeting could be organized with web meeting tools, and conference call
capability, and heavily "minuted" by staff.
As you've noted, Bruce, constituencies could also be invited to appoint
additional representatives from their constituency to attend the meeting,
with their councilor(s), and provide additional support. I'd assume that
might be extended to the ALAC, as well?
Request to Councilors/liaisons/policy staff:
Are there additional work items or considerations in the PDP, which I've
overlooked that we can undertake in parallel, while waiting for the actual
Issues Report? We can discuss this via email, and see what decisions Council
can make about what can be accomplished before the Council meeting, which is
now Feb. 6, am I not right?
Finally, Bruce, were you able to join Olof to update the Board about
Council's work and plans? I can understand that may not have happened, but
we probably do need to ensure that the full Board is aware of the Council's
work and activities, and the time line.
By the way, I've copied ICANN staff, since I would think that we would want
their attendance and support at the working session.
And, of course, we need General Counsel review, as noted above, at an early
stage re "scope".
Best Regards, Marilyn Cade
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:38 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
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
- 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council