Thanks, Bret and Maureen, for raising this question of a fairly late re-scheduling and the consequences. Obviously I was wrong when I assumed for quite some time that the consensus had already moved to later in May. Norbert = Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) wrote:

Bret, Glen and All,

Bret, I agree with your observations and I'm beginning to think it is ill-advised to proceed with the meeting.

I will be unable to attend in person. Given the importance of the task force work (PDP feb 06), and its relationship to what we plan to work on in Brussels, I am disappointed that the timing and travel logistics preclude my direct participation. (Even with juggling my schedule, I just can't get to Brussels and back in time to meet other business commitments.)

Aside from, and more important than my own individual regret, is the fact that there will be so few participants at what I understand is intended to be a session of the entire Council, consistent with the PDP process we have adopted for this work on new TLDs.

It seems to me that we have too few in-person participants to proceed as planned, and I would support the idea of re-scheduling, or finding another way to "meet", perhaps something consistent with what Bret has suggested.

Best regards, Maureen

-----Original Message----- From: owner-gtld-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-gtld-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 2:17 PM To: robin@ipjustice.org; gtld-council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Draft Agenda for Brussels meeting - 11 May to 13 May

Glen,

Do you have a head count yet for the Brussels meeting? Given the substantial number of apologies, I wonder whether a face-to-face meeting for this place and time is still appropriate. Perhaps we could substitute some focused time, in our own locales, on a wiki or other Internet-based forum.

Bret