Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Scheduling the next WG call

[Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with starting at 1730 and limiting the call to an hour and a half.

Jim
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: <owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 00:12:09 
To: Brian Peck<brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Scheduling the next WG call


Can we start the meeting at 1730 and keep it to an hour and a half? I think 
that if everyone gets their comments in by the deadline that Brian set for 
input, we can have a productive, and shorter call.



Thanks,



Kiran



Kiran Malancharuvil
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
+16199727810

Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse any typos.



------ Original Message ------

>From : Brian Peck
To : gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx;
Sent : 5/30/2013 8:07 PM
Subject : [gnso-igo-ingo] Scheduling the next WG call

As Chuck has mentioned, there is a new gTLD webinar scheduled for 16:00 - 17:30 
UTC next Wednesday, 5 June which conflicts with our scheduled WG call (16:00 - 
18:00), and the RySG meeting takes place the prior two hours which makes it 
difficult to move our meeting earlier. Moving the meeting back a couple of 
hours makes it late for our colleagues in Europe time zones, while moving the 
meeting to another day would also be difficult to coordinate given different WG 
meetings and everyone's other commitments.

Given the situation, we'd like to narrow the options to two choices:

  1.  Keep the currently scheduled time at 16:00 UTC (if a minimal number of WG 
members are planning to attend the webinar);
  2.  Start the meeting one hour later (17:00 – 19:00 UTC) which would result 
in just a 30 minute conflict with the webinar (from 17:00 – 17:30).

Please indicate if you have a preference, thanks.

Best Regards,

Brian

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN