Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Face to face meeting

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Stubbs wrote:
I believe Your wrong about Friday Roberto..

most  people will have to leave Thursday to make a Saturday am meeting . 
figuring a minimum 1 .5 hrs from plane at the gate to sitting in your 
seat at a wg meeting
from NYC absolutely earliest time would be 9:30am
Chicago                                                     9 30
los angeles                                              no non stops 13 
hr flt would put you in meeting at 11am
Tokyo no non stops & best arrival would be mid afternoon

* this assumes that you just walk into meeting venue with bags in hand 
(right off the plane)
I could go on & on but I think you get my point..
my suggestion is early morning Sunday starting at 7:30..
this meeting is an essential one and deserves a fair placement on the 
icann schedule..  This WG is built into the "work plans of many so why 
not put the meet at a time
that allows for the largest potential participation by wg members..

BTW:
*Sunday is slated on the icann website agenda for gnso workgroups.
*
On 4/30/2010 3:55 PM, Roberto Gaelan wrote:
> If there are better options than Sat. morning, fine, let's use them.
> We might end up with a doodle poll, but if there are options that we 
> can exclude from start, let's do it.
> From my POV, a F2F meeting elsewhere before the Brussels meeting, 
> which is where this thread started, is not feasible because of the 
> additional cost, short notice, and possible unavailability of key players.
> I thought Friday in Brussels had to be excluded because Friday was 
> likely to be travel day for most, and anticipating the trip atthis 
> point in time was a no starter. Am I wrong? If so, let's consider this 
> option as well.
> I thought Sunday was not a good idea because by then people would have 
> already work plans in Brussels, plus the Council would be in full 
> swingf. If I am wrong, we can consider this option as well.
> One point should be clear: if we have a WG F2F meeting, it has to be 
> *before* the presentationb to the Council, as the main purpose of this 
> meeting is to finalize the proposal that is going to be presented to 
> the Council.
> Any other option?
> R.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>     *Sent:* Friday, 30 April 2010 21:26
>     *To:* Roberto Gaetano
>     *Cc:* 'Mike O'Connor'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Subject:* Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Face to face meeting
>
>     Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
>     Its even worse than Milton describes.  The currently proposed time
>     slot would require many people to leave on Thursday
>     to insure arrival in time for a Saturday morning meeting.
>
>     Brussels is not a very popular European destination city for many
>     of the worlds airlines. This necessitates
>     that most going to the proposed Saturday meeting will have to
>     journey thru hubs like Paris, Amsterdam, London, Frankfurt, &
>     Madrid to get to Brussels.
>
>     Anyone looking at timetables can see that the overwhelming # of
>     connecting flights from these European hubs will arrive at
>     Brussels airport_* "far too late"*_ to make this proposed meeting.
>
>     The most considerate time discussed would be Sunday morning
>     (noting here that most would still have to leave Friday to make
>     even this meeting on a timely basis).
>
>
>
>     On 4/30/2010 1:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >     I would agree with Eckhaus, the choice of a time should be given a bit more 
> > consideration. Being at a Sat. morning meeting in Brussels, requires people in 
> > the U.S. to leave Friday afternoon at the latest, and even those of us in 
> > Europe may have been planning to arrive on Saturday and don't want an extra 
> > hotel night. Can't you make it Sat afternoon or Sunday morning, at least?
> >
> >        
> > >     -----Original Message-----
> > >     From:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx  [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> > >     feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> > >     Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:52 PM
> > >     To: 'Mike O'Connor';Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > >     Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Face to face meeting
> > >
> > >
> > >     Mikey,
> > >
> > >
> > >     Do you know if most of the can make that time either remotely or in
> > >     person?
> > >
> > >     I am not sure about others but I had already made plans for arrival in
> > >     Brussels and will be there on Saturday afternoon, so cannot participate
> > >     either way. This might be the case for many others as they may be in
> > >     the air at that time
> > >
> > >
> > >     Jeff Eckhaus
> > >
> > >     -----Original Message-----
> > >     From:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx  [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> > >     feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> > >     Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 8:04 AM
> > >     To:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > >     Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Face to face meeting
> > >
> > >
> > >     hi all,
> > >
> > >     here's an update on where things are at with assembling face to face.
> > >     the topic has been on our (Roberto's and my) radar for several weeks
> > >     and here's a snapshot of where we're at.
> > >
> > >     we think the best opportunity for a face to face gathering is the
> > >     Saturday morning at the start of the Brussels meeting.  this isn't what
> > >     we would go for in a perfect world where we had unlimited time, lots of
> > >     budget and people could get away from their regular jobs.  but it'll
> > >     have to do.  kinda like consensus decisions -- it's not our favorite
> > >     solution, but it's the best we can see.
> > >
> > >     so we've asked Glen to schedule us a 9-12 slot on Saturday morning.
> > >     are some thoughts;
> > >
> > >     -- the WG needs to meet as a group before we present our work to the
> > >     GNSO Council on Sunday (and before we have our workshop with the
> > >     broader community on Wednesday)
> > >
> > >     -- Saturday afternoon is scheduled to be a conversation between Kurt
> > >     and the GNSO about the DAG and we figure there's no way we can compete
> > >     with that
> > >
> > >     -- the GNSO topics scheduled for Saturday morning aren't quite so
> > >     crucial, so some Councilors might be able to break way to join us, at
> > >     least for a while
> > >
> > >     -- we asked for a longer slot because while the WG may not need the
> > >     whole 3 hours, we think it's easier to shorten the meeting at the last
> > >     minute than lengthen it
> > >
> > >     -- it's pretty hard to get people to Brussels before Saturday, and also
> > >     really hard on the conference-scheduling people to support us, so we
> > >     considered and dropped the idea of meeting on Friday
> > >
> > >     -- we'll provide remote participation for the meeting and will actively
> > >     use Adobe to run the meeting so that remote participants won't be
> > >     disadvantaged too much (except with regard to sleep)
> > >
> > >     -- the Sunday GNSO-Council slot will stay the same -- 30-45 minutes --
> > >     and will be focused on presenting where we are so far and getting
> > >     Council feedback
> > >
> > >     that concludes my report.  :-)
> > >
> > >     mikey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     - - - - - - - - -
> > >     phone       651-647-6109
> > >     fax                 866-280-2356
> > >     web         www.haven2.com
> > >     handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> > >     Google, etc.)
> > >
> > >
> > >          
> >