Bruce,
I agree with this approach - a
conference bridge instead of a public forum, per se.
Q. Would we set up the bridge during
the Washington DC meeting, or at a time prior to that, as it is my understanding
that the meeting is to be a working session?
Q. You wrote "and also please
identify any
particular papers where you think it would be beneficial
for the author to
present a summary of the paper orally and respond to
questions. I will
also ask Olof to review the received papers with this
in
mind. "
Kindly indicate where the papers, as
submitted by the authors, have been collected and may be viewed.
Thanks,
Maureen
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 5:00
AM
Subject: [council] Regarding meeting in
Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
Hello All,
As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb
2006, the meeting in
Washington will be for the Committee working on the
new gTLD policy
development process. The Committee is of the whole
Council, but where a
Council member cannot attend, they may nominate
another person from
their constituency to participate. The
constituency/Council member
should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a
nomination prior to the
meeting.
I am hoping that Olof will be able
to at least have a draft Initial
Report that summarises the constituency
input, the papers that have been
submitted in response to our call for
papers, and the public comments
submitted via the ICANN website.
The
aim of the meeting will be to consider this report and identify
areas of
consensus.
We are essentially operating under the provisions of section
8(b) and
8(c), of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws.
One thing we did not
cover in the Council call, was whether to hold an
open public forum.
Given that there were a few Council members that
were against this idea,
and also given the additional logistics and
costs of arranging such a
forum, I suggest instead that we follow up on
our call for papers on 3
January 2006:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm
. In that
call for papers we stated: "Received papers will be
considered for oral
presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006,
via scheduled
conference calls with the GNSO Council."
We could
simply set up a conference bridge to allow selected authors of
papers to
call-in, and where cost is an issue we can call-out to
appropriate
people.
Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and
also please
identify any particular papers where you think it would be
beneficial
for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and
respond to
questions. I will also ask Olof to review the received
papers with this
in mind. Glen can then contact the authors and
see who may be
available (we may have to schedule time appropriate to
the time zones
of the authors).
I think it is important to ensure
future substantial contributions to
the policy development process, that
the Committee gives significant
attention to considering these submissions
- and doesn't simply rely on
reading a staff
summary.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin