+1. May be a doodle poll, to be able to see who is going to make it to Copenhagen and than we will be in a good position to consider planning this meeting.

Thanks.

Zakir

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Cc: ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2017 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] [Ext] F2f planned in Copenhagen ?

Hello,

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 physically.

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.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Feb 4, 2017 10:27, "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@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@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.

______________________________ _________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list
Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds