NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:47:32 -0800
Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Subject:
From:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
Organization:
IP Justice
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (260 lines)
Hi Carlos,

Unfortunately I won't be able to attend the 24-25 Feb DC meeting because 
I am already scheduled to be at WIPO meetings in Geneva then.

We can send an alternate NCUC constituency member to the DC mtg in my 
place.   Perhaps Milton and/or Frannie would be able to attend the DC mtg?

I am very sorry to NCUC that I won't be able to be in DC then for this 
important meeting.

Robin


Carlos Afonso wrote:

> I have reviewed all messages I could find regarding the DC meeting and
> it is true that we have not decided for or against participating in it.
> My suggestion is that our three GNSO reps should be encouraged to go (no
> need to nominate others), but if NCUC needs to disburse funds for this,
> let us do so for only one, who would act as proxy as needed.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Mawaki Chango wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Carlos,
>>
>>I am one of the 3 NCUC's representatives at the GNSO Council, and
>>I've been the one raising the issue that NCUC had with that meeting.
>>Nonetheless, I've been forwarding to this list emails about that
>>meeting trying to draw your attention and raise awareness. So my
>>assumption to me, if you will, is that we were not against the
>>meeting, but against the agenda item that calls for public comments
>>on the gTLD PDP in Wash DC (which is not the only one, not even the
>>main purpose of the meeting).
>>
>>At this point in time, the move is rather in our favor, since Bruce
>>has suggested instead to have a conference bridge with the authors of
>>submitted papers calling in for more discussions/clarification on the
>>gTLD policy item, where the Councilors feel it's needed. We just
>>missed the WHOIS comments, and I guess we will not be in mass in
>>Wellington. And now, with all due respect, I am sorry Carlos to note
>>that you don't react to my postings urging to nominate delegates to
>>the meeting, but prompt to discourage Iliya in her attempt to support
>>us. Geeee... are we going to achieve anything that way?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mawaki
>>
>>--- Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>>Dear Iliya,
>>>
>>>My assumption, given the on-list exchange we had with Milton and
>>>some
>>>others, was that NCUC is against the meeting (I agree) and would
>>>not be
>>>present.
>>>
>>>fraternal regards
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>Iliya Nickelt wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear NCUC-EC,
>>>>
>>>>	I guess we have business to do. Sorry to have been so silent
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>lately, but 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still have little time at the moment.
>>>>
>>>>On 9 Feb 2006 at 15:54, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suggest that NCUC consider choosing among Kathy,
>>>>>Franny, Milton, and the its reps on the Council.
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK, only reply we got so far is a negative response from Kathy. I
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>would 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>suggest we (EC) morally support sending Franny, Milton and Mawaki
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>if they 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>want to, though it is up to the GNSO-Reps in the end to pass on
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>proxies. 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have no idea if there are any legal limits about who is
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>qualified to 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>attend without NCUC vote, but I guess the whole meeting is outside
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>borders anyway, so who cares.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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). 
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thus move to request a EC authorisation for the funding of
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>travel 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>expenses for the three delegees above in the form of flight /
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>train / bus 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>tickets (depending on the distance). Should they be willing to go,
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>that 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>is. Franny, Milton, are you interested and what would you estimate
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>your 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>costs are? Total sum for all three should stay below, hmm, $2000.
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let's 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>see if we can get anything back from GNSO.
>>>>
>>>>EC members, please cast a vote about the funding asap so tickets
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>can be 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>booked!
>>>>
>>>>	--iliya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>
>>>Carlos A. Afonso
>>>Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
>>>********************************************
>>>* Sacix -- distribui��o Debian CDD Linux   *
>>>* orientada a projetos de inclus�o digital *
>>>* com software livre e de c�digo aberto,   *
>>>* mantida pela Rits em colabora��o com o   *
>>>* Coletivo Digital.                        *
>>>* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
>>>********************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2