RE: [council] Re: proposed schedule changes

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

While I am not completely opposed to two NC meetings, I want to be sure I
understand the need for two meetings.  In deciding whether to have two
meetings, Ken, can you outline what we would absolutely need to meet on
BEFORE the Board's meeting, as opposed to after?  Also, can't we do what
Andrew is suggesting via email after the meeting?
Caroline

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew McLaughlin [mailto:mclaughlin@pobox.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 10:54 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] Re: proposed schedule changes


Hiro:

We've discussed your proposal (shifting the ICANN Public Forum and Board
meeting 1/2 day later) with careful attention, but it's simply not going to
be possible.  There are two primary reasons for a full-day Public Forum
followed by a Board meeting the next day:

(1)  The Board wants to preserve its ability to hold a full-day Board
meeting on Sunday, 16 July.  (I emphasize that DNSO groups should feel free
to schedule themselves at the same time as the Board meeting, if that's most
convenient).
(2)  The staff requires some time (i.e., Saturday night) to prepare draft
resolutions that take into account ideas and views presented at the Public
Forum.

So the Board will adhere to the basic schedule I presented earlier --
namely, a full-day Public Forum on July 15, and a Board meeting starting in
the morning of July 16.

I greatly appreciate your efforts to reach a sensible schedule for everyone
concerned, and I'm sorry that we can't make the adjustment you suggest.

[For what it's worth, I agree with Ken's notion that there may be a
significant value to DNSO groups to meet after the Board meeting.  For
example, the NC's recommendations on new TLDs should be completed long
before July 15, so that there will be adequate time for public review and
comment.  A post-Board meeting makes a lot of sense, as it would allow the
NC to take account of the Board's actions and to structure its
July-to-November work schedule properly.  Some groups (ccTLDs, for example)
have particular needs that require at least some portion of their meetings
to occur prior to July 15.  But all DNSO-related groups should consider
whether a post-Board meeting would be valuable, in the sense that it would
focus the NC/constituency/working group on future efforts.  Much of the work
of the DNSO constituencies is ongoing, and not directed toward items on the
Board's immediate agenda.  In short, I think the DNSO should experiment with
different schedule combinations to see what works best.]

Best,

--Andrew



[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
[ HiroHOTTA
[ Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 10:42 AM
[ To: Ken Stubbs; council@dnso.org
[ Subject: [council] Re: proposed schedule changes
[ 
[ 
[ Thank you, Ken.
[ 
[ I respect your comment and agree that extra burdon is not 
[ acceptable for most of the attendees and Constituencies.
[ 
[ As you know, I have asked Andrew whether ICANN Board could 
[ meet July 15 afternoon and July 16 full day. If it agrees, 
[ DNSO-related meetings can fit July 14 full day and July 15
[ morning. In this case, NC can meet on July 17, of course.
[ 
[ How do you feel about this?
[ 
[ Hiro
[