Re: [ubl-csc] Draft agenda for London UBL TC meeting

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

[Mike, see below for why you are now included in this CSC thread.]

| >That kind of depends on when we hold the calls.  We have at least
| >two possible participants: Michael Nguyen, our LSC rep from ITCS,
| >and Chee Kai.
| >
| i think you meant asia-pacific here (APEC?)

Where I work, APAC is the usual abbreviation for "Asia-Pacific"
(and EMEA stands for "Europe and Middle Eastern Area" -- just
learned that one).  APAC is usually a pretty unambiguous label,
but in a discussion that includes APACS (the Association for
Payment Clearing Services) it can be a bit confusing....

| >Not a bad idea (though by splitting the pool of potential callers,
| >we will probably lose any possibility of achieving a quorum in
| >either call).  The question of when to schedule the SC reports
| >remains, however.
| >  
| >
| maybe the second call will be just the chance to get members
| officially recognised as attending only.

Yeah... But is this worth abandoning our usual (and rather more
logical) plenary format?  After all, we offer people in the
U.S. this opportunity three out of four meetings a year.

| >*** NOTE that this assumes that APACS (Mike's organization, not
| >Asia-Pacific) is willing to pay for an international call for all
| >the dial-in segments OR to arrange an all-day conference call
| >for Monday. ***
| 
| sounds find.  note that in most international conference calls the
| caller pays (i pay for my calls).  therefore, it should not be
| APACS who needs to worry about the international call.

If we're going to use my Sun conference number, then the plenary
itself will be dialed in for hours and hours to a number in the
U.S.  I think it might be to Mike's advantage to arrange for APACS
to host the conference and make this a local call for him.

I'm leaning toward keeping our usual format and giving the
advantage to the Asia-Pacific folks this time.  But I can easily
be talked out of this position....

Jon