Hi Alan Thank you too much for this mail, you point out releavant thinks. I would like to add another poit in the agenda: Analyse Alan posting Cheers Didier -------Message original------- De : Alan Levin Date : 05/08/2008 10:47:51 A : All Accredited At Large Structures ((ALS)) in Africa; At-Large Staff Sujet : [AFRI-Discuss] meeting and raison d'être Hi All, Firstly, my apologies that I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow. I have a standing appointment at work for Wednesday afternoons at 3pm, so I appeal that the next meeting is not set for the same time and day. Any other day and time should be fine. Secondly my apologies for what is going to appear to be a rant. I will be honest, I do not think it is useful to have an organization that does nothing besides talk about itself all the time. If we continue in this vain, I cannot understand what is our (Afralos) raison d'être. (i.e. In the last 35 emails to the list they have contained ONLY information about who are members, thanks and blank or forwarded emails. The one exception is Nicks email asking 'why are we existing' which seems to be the question in hand). Some comments inline wrt agenda (which is consistent with all other comms): On 05 Aug 2008, at 10:06 AM, Didier Rukeratabaro Kasole wrote:
Please find next telconference agenda for your comment:
Please can you ensure that the agenda is distributed at least a few (2 or more) days before the meeting so that people can comment and contribute. My sense is that it need not be huge, just that it always has at least a draft agenda, date and time of the meeting plus information about how to join.
Adoption of the agenda Roll Call Apologies from the Members (if any) Designation of a Chair for the meeting Welcom to MACIS Staff announcements
These seem to all be formalities.... IMHO this could all be sent and completed via email (well as much as possible). It shouldn't take more than 2 minutes on the telephone call if it is to be productive.
Improving regional communications ( ALS in Africa)
I do not think that this is the purpose of the AfRALO. I am already a member of 8 other lists where African Internet (and ICANN) issues are discussed. In addition there are regular African meetings at ICANN events. My sense is that the communications are pretty good. The thing I do not understand is where are all the policy discussions that relate to African Internet Users, please advise me.
Interactions with Other RALOS
IMHO, this is the job of the AfRALO representatives and we should get some written feedback from them about these. It still does not address any material issues that relate to our purpose: Where are all the policy discussions that relate to African Internet Users?
Review of the Action Items : Discussions ALAC review
I'm interested to see what comes up here (in the ALAC review). I recently read on one of the lists where they actually discuss policy that relates to end users. As a stub for discussion on policy issues that relate to our members, and proposed agenda item, I ask the following questions about: The GNSO reform ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- There is a GNSO reform underway. My understanding is that the GNSO is where the work is done that goes to the Board for decision making. It also is responsible for a great deal of the inter-constituency debate and recommendations that come from that. One of the reasons for the reform was that the GNSO was not balanced wrt interests being represented. Initially the business constituencies controlled 9 out of 10 votes (the other one was the non-commercial constituency which is the closest to end user or public interests). Later, registries and registrars were given some voting, which balanced the commercial groups but industry suppliers had too much control. In Paris a small working group was established to review the GNSO structure. They appear to be in agreement that there should be a balanced number of votes between commercial and non-commercial interests in the GNSO. (I expect that we all see end users as non- commercial). Unfortunately it has become clear that the ALAC representative in this group does not appear supportive of this proposed balance. This seems completely wrong, can anyone (ideally one of our elected representatives on the ALAC) please explain why this is the case? Surely it is our mandate to ensure that users have a voice in the GNSO? Apparently the ALAC representative on the working group is a Nomcom appointee and was mainly concerned with retaining Nomcom appointed seats. I am not sure if we agree with that. In my opnion, if we (Afralo) were operating efficiently, it may be better for us to appoint the GNSO representative in place of the Nomcom. What do you think? The feelings I've expressed in this email are not only my perception, even those not involved in the ALAC at all are saying: "we see ALAC bogged down in its own internal politics and somewhat disconnected from the larger issues". I look forward to reading any comments. Sincerely, Alan _______________________________________________ AFRI-Discuss mailing list AFRI-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-discuss_atlarge-lists icann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to this list are more accurate: http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_emec/presentation.html#a...