Fwd: [council] Regarding meeting in Washington, DC - Friday 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb

[Mawaki Chango]

Hello all:

Please be advised that the Council is now planning the Washington DC
meeting on Feb 24. I suggest that NCUC consider choosing among Kathy,
Franny, Milton, and the its reps on the Council. I am voluntaring to
participate (but of course not alone), and the cost for the trip etc.
in my case would be around $600. A quick answer is needed; more we
take time higher will be the cost (very few seats are now available
on the flights at the current price).
Regards,

Mawaki

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Subject: [council] Regarding  meeting in Washington, DC -  Friday
> 24 Feb and Saturday 25 Feb
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:00:40 +1100
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hello All,
>
> As agreed during our teleconference on 6 Feb 2006, the meeting in
> Washington will be for the Committee working on the new gTLD policy
> development process.  The Committee is of the whole Council, but
> where a
> Council member cannot attend, they may nominate another person from
> their constituency to participate.   The constituency/Council
> member
> should inform the GNSO Secretariat of such a nomination prior to
> the
> meeting.
>
> I am hoping that Olof will be able to at least have a draft Initial
> Report that summarises the constituency input, the papers that have
> been
> submitted in response to our call for papers, and the public
> comments
> submitted via the ICANN website.
>
> The aim of the meeting will be to consider this report and identify
> areas of consensus.
>
> We are essentially operating under the provisions of section 8(b)
> and
> 8(c), of Annex A of the ICANN bylaws.
>
> One thing we did not cover in the Council call, was whether to hold
> an
> open public forum.  Given that there were a few Council members
> that
> were against this idea, and also given the additional logistics and
> costs of arranging such a forum, I suggest instead that we follow
> up on
> our call for papers on 3 January 2006:
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm .  In
> that
> call for papers we stated: "Received papers will be considered for
> oral
> presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via
> scheduled
> conference calls with the GNSO Council."
>
> We could simply set up a conference bridge to allow selected
> authors of
> papers to call-in, and where cost is an issue we can call-out to
> appropriate people.
>
> Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and also please
> identify any particular papers where you think it would be
> beneficial
> for the author to present a summary of the paper orally and respond
> to
> questions.  I will also ask Olof to review the received papers with
> this
> in mind.   Glen can then contact the authors and see who may be
> available  (we may have to schedule time appropriate to the time
> zones
> of the authors).
>
> I think it is important to ensure future substantial contributions
> to
> the policy development process, that the Committee gives
> significant
> attention to considering these submissions - and doesn't simply
> rely on
> reading a staff summary.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>