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

Dear Bruce, 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 responsively. 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 following approach? 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 designated representatives. 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 1/30? 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:38 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington 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

It is impressive that Council is engaging in extended outreach activities in relation to the gTLDs PDP. The proposed Washington meeting is one such manifestation of this desire. I wonder however if there is a difference between outreach and public comment. Who do we expect to hear from that otherwise are silent to us? Registries and registrars have their constituencies or liaison. Broader business interests have their constituencies. Non-commercial interests have a constituency. Government has an eloquent liaison. Individuals have a voice through the ALAC liaison. Are we not in danger of undermining the role of these bodies in our new found lust for outreach? I think in particular of the ALAC. Thoughts? Philip