July 2014 - Internal-cg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Internal-cg] Welcome to the "Internal-cg" mailing list
by Mary Uduma July 12, 2014

July 12, 2014

Test Mary Uduma On Saturday, July 12, 2014 2:22 PM, "internal-cg-request(a)icann.org" <internal-cg-request(a)icann.org> wrote: Welcome to the Internal-cg(a)icann.org mailing list! To post to this list, send your email to: internal-cg(a)icann.org General information about the mailing list is at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your subscription page at: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/options/internal-cg/mnuduma%40yahoo.com You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to: Internal-cg-request(a)icann.org with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions. You must know your password to change your options (including changing the password, itself) or to unsubscribe. It is: beawdibi Normally, Mailman will remind you of your icann.org mailing list passwords once every month, although you can disable this if you prefer. This reminder will also include instructions on how to unsubscribe or change your account options. There is also a button on your options page that will email your current password to you.

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] scheduling meetings
by James M. Bladel July 12, 2014

July 12, 2014

Agree with this. There is significant overlap between the membership of this group, ICANN, and other IG events (IGF, PP14, etc.) Synchronizing meeting calendars may also cut down on travel & meeting expenses, personal or ICANN. Thanks‹ J. On 7/12/14, 10:32 , "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >On this agenda item: >14:15 - 15:00 CG meeting/conference call schedule. > >For those of us with demanding jobs other than ICANN, it would be useful >if we could combine CG meetings with other ICANN meetings to some extent. >E.g., target L.A. ICANN meeting in October for our next F2F, add a day on >to the beginning or end. IETF or RIR meetings might serve a similar >function if we think we need to increase the frequency of F2F meetings >(which I hope we don't!) > >Just a thought. > >MM >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Notification that the IANA transition mailing list has been reopened in response to community feedback
by Ergys Ramaj July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014

?Dear all, This is to inform you that the ianatransition(a)icann.org<mailto:ianatransition@icann.org> mailing list has been reopened in response to community feedback. Please see below for a note from Theresa Swinehart, also accessible here<mailto:http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/t/reopening-ianatransition-ican…>. --- All, Thank you for your raising some important issues in relation to the migration of the IANA Transition mailing list to a web forum. We were trying to serve the broadest community we could as efficiently, transparently and as accessibly as we could, but recognize that the migration raised some concerns, which was not at all the intention, and I apologize for this. To address the feedback we have received, we are reinstating the mailing list and we are looking into the points raised around the terms of service. Further we apologize for instituting the previous changes without discussion or further feedback. While we are restoring the mailing list, there was - and still is - a purpose in setting up the forum, and though it's after the fact, it's nonetheless appropriate to share with you what motivated the change. We had input that some prospective participants are uncomfortable using email lists. We also had input that many people wanted additional functionality or different ways to manage communications. Specifically, the migration sought to provide a tool to those also less familiar with using only email lists. The forum was set up to provide the functionality expected from a mailing list, including that participants can send and receive posts via email just like the mailing list. It also some additional aspects some may find easier to manage via, including: * ??Ability to choose what they want to see (rather than have to set up email rules to filter out what they don^1t want). They can mute or follow specific threads; * Ability to sign up for digests (full or topic specific) on a schedule of their choosing; * Ability for search engines to search posts; * Ability to view and respond to specific topics; * Ability for participants to identify the most valuable contributions by liking them; * It can be easier for some less familiar with email lists to see new topics and to navigate to different topics; * Questions can be made and answered and referred to, saving repetition; * Future options include such as user selectable machine translation of posts, thereby allowing multiple language participation in the same discussion, without the conversation fragmenting by language or locality. We appreciate that a forum only option raised other concerns, including many don't like to use discussion forums or manage communications that way. Given the interests expressed to retain the mailing list it will be reopened shortly. Thank you again for your continued feedback and suggestions for improvements, they are important to continue to improve the mechanisms and engagement in these important discussions. Kind regards, Theresa

1 0

Re: [Internal-cg] Conference call?
by Narelle Clark July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Am on the call however in a noisy airport lounge. Narelle -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Suite 402 Level 4, 55 Mountain St Ultimo NSW 2007 Ph: 02 9288 4000 Direct: 02 9288 4007 Fax: 02 9288 4019 TTY: 02 9281 5322 "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn(a)lstamour.org> wrote: Hi Milton, a note came in yesterday - from Alice Jansen included here: Begin forwarded message: > From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Internal-cg] Coordination Group Call 01 - Thurs, 10 July - 20:00-21:00 UTC > Date: July 9, 2014 5:37:19 PM EDT > To: "internal-cg(a)icann.org" <internal-cg(a)icann.org> > > When: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 PM-9:00 PM. Coordinated Universal Time > Where: Conference ID – 92957255 - Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > **Thursday, 10 July 2014** > 20:00-21:00 UTC > Timezone converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Coordination+Group… > > > Bridge details: > Dial in Numbers - http://adigo.com/icann/ > Conference ID – 92957255 > > Should you need a dial-out for this call, please contact ICANN staff. > The call will be recorded. > On Jul 10, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: > As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. > > > > > From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM > To: internal-cg(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline > > Colleagues: > > Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... > > Joe > > On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I’m sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! > > — > > What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. > > The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. > > In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: > > 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. > > 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. > > 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. > > 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. > > The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. > > I’m a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? > > In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they’ll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. > > I guess what I’m coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. > > The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. > > So here is one possible overall timeline: > > Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) > > Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) > > Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) > > Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) > > Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

2 1

Conference call
by Narelle Clark July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

I will join in 10-15mins N -- Narelle Clark Director of Operations - Deputy CEO Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Suite 402 Level 4, 55 Mountain St Ultimo NSW 2007 Ph: 02 9288 4000 Direct: 02 9288 4007 Fax: 02 9288 4019 TTY: 02 9281 5322 Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Colleagues: Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... Joe On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I’m sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! — What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. I’m a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they’ll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. I guess what I’m coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. So here is one possible overall timeline: Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

1 0

Conference call?
by Milton L Mueller July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

As far as I can tell no one has told us the call-in information for the CG conference call that is supposed to happen in about 45 minutes. From: internal-cg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:13 PM To: internal-cg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline Colleagues: Perhaps the first step is a publication and comment on our operational processes, objectives and input methodology, including consultation mechanisms for those of us representing constituencies. That might give people some comfort in relation to the transparency of our own group's operation? This is likely implied in 1 and 2, but I think we should be more explicit. I understand that this may be more relevant to work other than our own, but issues of optics and comfort with the fairness, inclusiveness and transparency of the process have been huge issues as of late in IG discussions... Joe On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I'm sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! - What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. I'm a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they'll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. I guess what I'm coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. So here is one possible overall timeline: Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg(a)icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

3 3

Fwd: Timeline
by Patrik Fältström July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

By accident a few messages ended up being fork:ed out from the mailing list. Here they are (with approval by the involved parties). Patrik Begin forwarded message: > From: Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline > Date: 10 July 2014 19:28:02 +0200 > To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> > Cc: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa(a)cooperw.in> > > I have the same view, or similar, as Jari. > > I think the primary goal MUST be the transition. Not accountability or otherwise changes of ICANN or something else. > > That said, when looking at the transition, there might be implications that for example changes might be "wanted" in the PDP that ICANN runs for ccTLDs. The tricky part will then be to identify which ones of those changes are actual show stoppers for the transition, and what are things that can be put on hold and be done in parallell to the transition. > > Because of this, I find it be extremely important to have consensus in the group that the coordination group must have as a goal to answer the quite well defined scope that is given to it, and nothing more. If nothing else, the current contract between NTIA and ICANN can and should be the scope. > > Patrik > > On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:10, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> wrote: > >> Hi Joe, >> >> (Adding Alissa and Patrik who I think both might have views on this.) >> >> My answer: We do not yet have such a delineation. >> >> We need to come up with our own scope definition. >> >> My personal favourite scope is to divide it to the communities/customers and say, “do whatever you think is necessary for the NTIA stewardship to transfer to the community”. The answers on accountability might differ between names and protocol numbers, for instance. We at the IETF already have contracts and the usual escalation procedures to deal with non-performance/failure of IANA, for instance. And ICANN isn’t responsible for protocol parameters policies, so it might be that we do not need so much from the ICANN accountability process. But that is definitely not the case for names. >> >> Jari >> >> On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:04, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff(a)oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> Jari: >>> >>> Is there a delineation of mandates and any proposal for coordination between the accountability work and our work? There could be areas of overlap... >>> >>> Joe >>> On 7/10/2014 1:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>> I thought it would be useful to start discussion of some of the topics that the group needs to deal with. I’m sending you some thoughts on the timeline of events looking forward. This is a rough draft and for discussion purposes only. Please comment! >>>> >>>> — >>>> >>>> What is described below reads as one timeline, but it may be important to understand that we actually have multiple parallel efforts: protocol parameters, addresses, and names. These efforts have several points of linkage, but allowing parallel operation is probably a good idea. As a result, the timeline may run at slightly different speeds for the different parts. >>>> >>>> The NTIA has said that the September 2015 deadline is not firm, and that they could extend contracts and prolong the process beyond that. I do believe, however, that there are several reasons why getting done by then is at least useful if not even necessary. First of all, I think we all need a goal. And open-ended timelines lead to open-ended discussions. Second, people, administrations, political climate, etc. may change. So I think we should work towards September 30, 2015. But of course, we also want a good proposal to go forward. >>>> >>>> In thinking about what is needed before completion, I think see at least the following tasks: >>>> >>>> 1. Communities: Communities coming up with plans. >>>> >>>> 2. Coordination and alignment. This includes possible iteration and even going back to the communities. It also includes, possibly, some acceptance phase with the global community for the assembled plan. For instance, the assembled complete plan should probably be something that the customers of IANA are happy with. In other words, coordination can be lead by the coordination group, but it likely includes a lot of work also in the communities. >>>> >>>> 3. Test run. We may want to show off that the system can actually run in the proposed way for a while. >>>> >>>> 4. NTIA evaluation and approval process. >>>> >>>> The community processes are in my opinion the most important ones, and should involve most of the work. In addition, they tend to run for long times. For instance, the simplest IETF last call would be a month already. We also want to give time to the NTIA to do what they need to do. And we should not optimistically assume that there is no need to adjust and iterate over the initially submitted plans. Which may include some additional time confirming with various communities that changes are OK. >>>> >>>> I’m a little unclear how much testing/demonstration we need. Arguably, the IETF probably runs the system it needs already. But there are other parts where some re-organisation and re-thinking is needed. Not really clear to me how much confidence building would be needed for those parts. Does anyone have thoughts on this? >>>> >>>> In general, I think we should run this process as the much ourselves as possible, and have everything (including criteria fulfilment) very clearly spelled out for the NTIA, rather leaving any substantial work for them. But they’ll still need some time to process. And we might again need to come back and change something. >>>> >>>> I guess what I’m coming to is trying to get going pretty early, so that we can iterate in later stages. >>>> >>>> The tasks are obviously overlapping. For instance, the coordination group should do coordination from day 1, by understanding what the communities are doing and pointing out if they are going into conflicting directions or if there are parts that are not being addressed. >>>> >>>> So here is one possible overall timeline: >>>> >>>> Step 1: Communities' work - ready by Dec 30, 2014 (6 months) >>>> >>>> Step 2: Coordination and alignment, including iteration - ready by March 30, 2015 (+3 months) >>>> >>>> Step 3: Acceptance and communication - ready by May 30, 2015 (+2 months) >>>> >>>> Step 4: Testing - ready by July 30, 2015 (+ 2 months) >>>> >>>> Step 5: NTIA evaluation and acceptance - ready by September 30, 2015 (+2 months) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> >>>> Internal-cg(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg >>> >> >

1 0

Liman unable to make it to London.
by Lars-Johan Liman July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Just FYI, Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the meeting in London. It came about on short notice, and I have other committments already booked. RSSAC will still be represented by Daniel Karrenberg. My regrets, /Lars-Johan Liman RSSAC representative #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman(a)netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Coordination Group Call 01 - Thurs, 10 July - 20:00-21:00 UTC
by Alice Jansen July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

When: Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:00 PM-9:00 PM. Coordinated Universal Time Where: Conference ID – 92957255 - Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* **Thursday, 10 July 2014** 20:00-21:00 UTC Timezone converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Coordination+Group… Bridge details: Dial in Numbers - http://adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID – 92957255 Should you need a dial-out for this call, please contact ICANN staff. The call will be recorded. On 7/9/14 9:40 PM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net<mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net>> wrote: Thanks for responding to the poll. It is pretty obvious that the Thursday option for the call is most popular. Lets have it at that time. The time is tomorrow Thursday, July 10th. 13:00 Pacific 16:00 Easter 22:00 Central Europe 23:00 East Europe 06:00 Brisbane (for this timezone, the date is Friday, July 11th) I will ask for a bridge to be set up. I believe we should be done well within an hour. In the interest of transparency and openness, I’d like to make minutes and a recording of the call to be publicly available. Let me know if there are any concerns. Jari

1 0