I may possibly be attending the gsma conference in spain, but would not be able to attend a meeting in or around the 28th. The 21st works much better for me. Ross Rader, ross@tucows.com ...sent via my mobile handset -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Stubbs"<kstubbs@afilias.info> Sent: 23/01/06 23:21:19 To: "names council"<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington -------- 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@afilias.info> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@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 > > > > > > > > > > >