Seems the meeting will be held  Feb 24-25 
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01886.html >. 
See 
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01865.html>, 
particularly about participation, constituencies may send 
representatives.  Take that opportunity (we can find 3 people to 
attend, right?) *and* strongly object.

I think such meetings set a very bad precedent, they naturally work 
against any elected council member from a developing country or 
person without support of their employer etc. They very strongly 
favor northern commercial interests.

It's ironic that when discussing when to schedule the meeting a 
number of council members mentioned they would attend the Internet 
governance Forum meeting in Geneva, February 16-17. They should 
perhaps think on what they may bring down on themselves. Be 
interesting to see if Brazil picks up on this DC meeting in its next 
rant on xxx. GNSO is setting up their punch lines.

And the suggestion to perhaps meet in Frankfurt when the council 
discusses internationalised domain names, Bruce Tonkin writes: "We 
have yet to meet in Germany - and Frankfurt certainly sounds like an 
appropriate place for when we next arrange a meeting.   I think when 
we get onto the topic of policy related to internationalised domain 
names, it would certainly be good to pick a location where English is 
not the dominant language."

Kind of gagged a little when I read that.  Our councillors should 
insist now that any meeting of the GNSO on internationalised domain 
names must take place in either Asia (China) or an Arab country.

Adam


>Based on information supplied to me by our GNSO Council members, we 
>learn that the Council is thinking of having a physical meeting in 
>late February in Washington DC on new gTLDs.
>
>Superficially, it appears that the Council is holding this meeting 
>to "make progress on policy drafting" in a face to face meeting in 
>order to be ready for the Wellington meeting. But take a closer look.
>
>The meeting is also being held to "provide an opportunity for any 
>additional public comment on the reports published so far." What 
>that means, basically, is that it provides an opportunity for 
>Washington-based business lobbies (i.e., intellectual property and 
>BC) to come in and lobby the proceedings in force. And it puts the 
>whole thing before a US government audience, just so we know who 
>really calls the shots.
>Naturally, the meeting was proposed by Marilyn Cade, who has 
>altruistically volunteered to take charge of the arrangements.
>
>There is really no excuse for this.
>
>I urge our Council members to start raising tough questions about 
>the alleged purpose of this proposed meeting.
>
>Holding this meeting in Washington and accepting "public comment" 
>turns this into a lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by 
>Washington insiders, the BC, IPC and incumbent registries, all of 
>whom have good reasons to be hostile to new gTLDs. This is a 
>transparent political ploy. What does this say to the people in 
>Asia, Africa and Latin America and even Europe, that when the 
>Council has to make a crucial decision it sets up shop in Washington 
>with a month's notice and opens its doors to lobbyists?
>
>If the Council really needs to have a f2f meeting to help it work 
>out a common position, its members should get together as far away 
>from Washington DC as possible, and they should keep ALL lobbying 
>and pressure from interest groups as far away from them as 
>possible!!!
>
>We have heard the same arguments for and against new gTLDs for 
>years. We don't need more comment and lobbying. We need to make 
>decisions. The idea that the council and its constituencies don't 
>know what their position is, or need to hear more, is ridiculous. 
>What needs to happen is for the various constituencies to put their 
>heads together and come up with a common position.