RE: [wg-c] Cairo meeting?

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

At 12:09 PM -0500 2/16/00, Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue wrote:
>Hello, All:
>
>I'm all for the "internet way" whenever possible and was no happier than
>anyone that the next ICANN meeting was set for Cairo. But based on the past
>ICANN meetings when the working group and constituency meetings we're not
>available for online participation, these are the only opportunities we
>have to present a united voice (or something close to united) to the board.


This mailing list is the unified voice to the board.  I do not agree 
that "the meeting" should be at Cairo or even at a specific time and 
place online.  I believe that all proposals, etc. should be hashed 
out via this mailing list.

>
>If working group members that choose not to come to the physical meetings
>are able to participate remotely, that's great. And if that is the case,
>then there is no reason not to have a meeting anyway (even if there is only
>six people in the room) because then everyone has a chance theoretically to
>participate whether there physically or not.


I have no problem with people meeting, however I DO  have a problem 
with decisions being made via that meeting.

>
>But to ignore a meeting, I think, dampens the spirit of what we're
>chartered to try to accomplish.


In what way?

>
>So does anyone know if working groups and constituency meetings will be
>widely available for online participation or will the only remote
>participation be the general and public meetings as usual?
>
>As a side note, if these meetings are going to cause so much hardship for
>travel and ancillary expenses, why do we have to have them twice a year?
>Why not do it by remote participation in all cases?

This is a question ICANN has been asked on multiple occasions.  The 
cost associated with these junkets is astronomical.  Of course, the 
SOs and NSI pay for the ICANN crew to go, but the rest of us are not 
quite that lucky.