Re: [wg-c] Cairo meeting?

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Jeff --

	The business of the working group is conducted primarily through the
mailing list; that's the only way an internationally diverse group of
people, all of whom have day jobs, can conduct business.  To that extent we
can have physical meetings from time to time, that's desirable --
face-to-face contact can promote understanding in a way that e-mail doesn't
-- but not absolutely necessary.  So far, in response to the message I sent
Tuesday, five people have indicated their availability for a wg-c meeting
in Cairo.  I'd love to meet all five of you for a drink Tuesday night in
Cairo, but I think it would be silly for the six of us to get together and
announce that we constituted a "meeting" of the working group -- there
would just be too many folks unrepresented.  No agreement reached among the
six of us would be meaningful.

	That means that we're going to have to continue doing our work on the
mailing list.  (For an agenda of the business before the WG, see
<http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00610.html>.)  Among the top
items right now:
	1. straw poll on chartered TLDs -- keep those cards and letters coming!
	2. Kent suggested that it would have been desirable to develop a reference
model detailing different possible structures for the
ICANN-registry-registrar relationship, describing the possible models for a
"registry"; I solicited volunteers for a small committee to develop such a
document.  So far, the response has been underwhelming.  Volunteers?

Jon


At 09:52 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue wrote:
>Jonathan:
>
>Why does there have to be a "significant number" of WG-C members in Cairo
>to hold a meeting? We have business to discuss regardless of how many
>people are there. If the working groups don't meet or decide they don't
>need to meet, what's the point of having the conference in the first place?
>We all spend a lot of our time reading and responding to the list prior to
>the bi-annual ICANN conference specifically so we can work towards some
>kind of consensus to finalize and send up the chain of command at the
>conference. 
>
>We, like many others, have already committed a chunk of change for travel
>to this meeting because we assumed it was our duty to be there so we can
>further the business at hand. In fact, we felt it was the duty of ALL of us
>to be at ALL of the conferences regardless of where they are.
>
>Are you saying now that there is no pressing business that needs attention
>because there are a lot of members who will only physically attend meetings
>that take place in North America?
>
>If that's the case, let's do two things immediately:
>
>1) take a roll call of who is expecting to attend so we know exactly what
>we're talking about
>2) hash out a tentative agenda of what business the WG-C has. 
>
>If this reveals that there is indeed no pressing business, then we can all
>cancel our reservations and travel arrangements, save our money and simply
>wait for the Jeri Clausing and the NY Times to tell us what happened.
>
>In my humble opinion, if members decide not to come to the ICANN
>conferences (where the business gets done), then they have no justification
>for criticizing the outcome.
>
>Do you not agree?
>
>Thanks.
>Jeff Shrewsbury
>Info Avenue Internet Services
>
>
>
>At 04:17 PM 2/15/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>	I've been assuming that there won't be a physical meeting of the WG in
>>Cairo, because it's been my impression that relatively few members of the
>>WG are going to Cairo.  If I'm mistaken about this -- if, in fact, a
>>significant number of WG-C members are going to Cairo and would like to
>>hold a physical meeting -- please let me know ASAP.
>>
>>	Thanks.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Weinberg
>>weinberg@msen.com
>>
>
>