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@schlund.de] Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@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
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@ifpi.org> To: "Thomas Keller" <tom@schlund.de>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <council@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@schlund.de] Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@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
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@ifpi.org> To: "Thomas Keller" <tom@schlund.de>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <council@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@schlund.de] Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@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
Tom, No cynicism intended. By the same token as, for example, some could attend if the meeting is in Germany, I could attend one in this part of the world, but dont have budget foreseen to travel to Europe or the USA ? Also, since references were made to cost optimization in some suggestions, I thought I would contribute my five cents. On maximizing, this inevitably means some get excluded, right? Best Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@schlund.de> To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
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@ifpi.org> To: "Thomas Keller" <tom@schlund.de>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: <council@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@schlund.de] Sent: 24 January 2006 08:45 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@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
Another possibility is to convene five meetings, one in each ICANN segment of the world, and connect them by split screen video conference. On Jan 24, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Antonio Harris wrote:
No cynicism intended. By the same token as, for example, some could attend if the meeting is in Germany, I could attend one in this part of the world, but dont have budget foreseen to travel to Europe or the USA ?
participants (6)
-
Anthony Harris -
Antonio Harris
-
Avri Doria -
Bret Fausett -
Thomas Keller -
Ute Decker