August 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Hello all, On Saturday it came to my attention that ICANN held a secret meeting for registrars and registries in Toronto. Why do I claim it was secret? Because there was no advance notice of the meeting on ICANN's website, and the results were published only after the meeting was over. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm Living in Toronto, I was actually consulted back in March about local hotels; at the time I explicitly asked to be invited to observe. That's how I know there was no advance notice of the meeting, I was routinely checking after the hotel inquiry. And I certainly received no notice of the meeting, let alone an invitation. Who knows how many other meetings like this have happened, without notice before (or may be even after) they took place? Now... why is it that what At-Large does is always under the microscope, our requests for funding for regional and outreach meetings denied, and others are welcome to sit in on our proceedings, but the same rules don't apply to contracted parties? This would have been a perfect opportunity to co-host a NARALO meeting, with ICANN already having booked favourable room rates etc. At very least, I (and others) should have been offered the courtesy to attend as observers. I explicitly recall at the Summit, that the registrar people who inserted themselves into our working group dicussions were quiet explicit that their meetings were as publicly accesible as ours. Apparently that claim was a lie. I am extremely angry over this in a want-to-get-the-Ombudsman-involved way; I request a response from ICANN staff and I am asking for ALAC's support in this inquiry. As it is unlikely that At-Large staff were aware of this meeting either, I am asking for its help in identifying the source of this clandestine activity. We are owed an explanation of why some ICANN constituencies get to have secret, private regional meetings but others do not get to have regional meetings -- private or public -- at all. - Evan

7 13

Re: [ALAC] clarification Re: Letter to the Chair of the Board on Status of Liaison Statement on Consumer and Other Constituency Proposals
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 1, 2009

Sept. 1, 2009

Adam I am awaiting 1) a response from Denise re specifics I've asked for as Board confidentiality needs to be looked into and 2) to allow Wendy to also respond to me if she so desired I proposed a chat at our mid month ExCom call or at any other convenient time... The ExCom list will have as a matter of record, the letter in reply to Denise's original inquiry regarding this matter with greater details is also archived there... It was a specific choice of mine, supported by the other Elected Officers NOT to sent this material at this stage to a more 'public At-Large list' at this stage and it has Not been discussed at the last meeting the matter was however in my view a time critical one that needed addressing before todays ICANN Board Meeting for a number of reasons... CLO 2009/8/27 Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > Cheryl, Hi, > > Could you give some background to this letter. What, apparently, did Wendy > say and when? How did you hear about it, was there not time to discuss with > Wendy and At Large first before writing to Peter and the board? > > Perhaps the matter was discussed on the last ALAC call, but I was not able > to attend, and I think it would be helpful to inform the community of all > relevant information. > > Wendy, any comment? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > To: Peter Dengate-Thrush >> >> Peter, >> >> You should by now have received the official notification by the Staff of >> ALAC¹s strong support for the proposed GNSO Consumer Constituency; the >> ALAC >> voted by consensus to endorse the proposal. >> >> In this connection, I have the unhappy duty to inform you that it has come >> to our attention that the ALAC Board Liaison made statements in connection >> with the Board discussion about the proposed consumer constituency that >> were >> directly contrary to the view of the At-Large Community. It appears that >> she >> also made statements about other constituency proposals, many of which we >> have taken no settled view upon (CityTLD, IDNgTLD). >> >> If she did not make it clear that the ALAC and At-Large strongly support >> the >> Consumer Constituency proposal, she should have. Any adverse comments or >> questions that she raised were entirely personal in nature. >> >> To be frank, ALAC Liaisons to any part of ICANN have no business making >> personal statements without making clear that is all that they are; if >> Wendy >> failed to do in this case then she was acting inappropriately. All ALAC >> Liaisons are very clearly instructed to make it clear when they are making >> statements on behalf of At-Large, and when they are making personal >> statements. Our Liaisons (all of them) also don¹t have any business >> making >> personal statements that they know are directly contrary to the formally >> stated positions of the community that they represent without making the >> conflict-of-interest situation crystal clear. >> >> For the avoidance of doubt, any statement made to the Board by the ALAC >> Board Liaison which is not clearly stated as ³on behalf of At-Large², is >> automatically a personal view only. I encourage you and/or your >> colleagues >> on the Board to enquire of me, or the Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur of the >> ALAC >> if you have any question about the nature of any statement made by our >> liaison. >> >> There is no possibility that Wendy could not have known of the support of >> the At-Large for the Consumer Constituency. At-Large has sought to >> recruit >> consumer organisations into the community for years now, and several >> internationally known consumer representatives and organisations are >> long-term At-Large Community members and leaders. In addition, leaders of >> the international consumer movement in At-Large are parties to the >> Constituency proposal as you know, and others in At-Large are working hard >> to recruit more consumer groups to join the constituency should the Board >> approve it. >> >> On a positive note, in preparation for the appointment of a Board Liaison >> for the upcoming year, At-Large began some months ago considerably >> upgrading >> the process by which the ALAC Board Liaison is chosen, and fleshed-out in >> considerable detail the obligations and requirements for eligibility for >> this important position. We ask for a statement from all candidates that >> they are able to meet the obligations, as part of our nominations process, >> and we recognise that there is nothing (so far) in our planned processes >> where we do anything resembling due diligence or even try to >> evaluate/judge >> how well the candidates meet the eligibility requirements (many of which >> are >> subjective in any case); We will shortly be apprising you of these via our >> At-Large Staff. >> >> Based on this experience this may need considerable review in the future >> but >> with the planned advent of voting At-Large elected Board Members I suspect >> the point becomes somewhat moot, but it is something to be considered as >> we >> flesh out that electoral process in the future. >> >> We believe these measures considerably increase the transparency and >> accountability of those who speak in our community¹s name, and that >> unfortunate incidents such as the one that causes me to write to you today >> will be very effectively prevented. Moreover, I think you will find that >> the new processes and requirements are a considerable step forward in the >> development of processes that could be used by the At-Large Community to >> select voting Directors in the happy circumstance that the Board decides >> to >> approve At-Large appointing one or more Directors, as we believe that it >> should. >> >> Finally, please do forward this note on to the full Board, in advance of >> or >> at, this month's ICANN Board Meeting and discussions. >> >> >> >> (Digitally signed in the PDF copy attached to this transmission) >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) >> >> *ALAC Chair 2007-2009* >> >> *26**th** August, 2009* >> >> Content-Type: application/pdf; >> name="Letter to the Chair of the Board on Status of Liaison >> Statement on Consumer and Other Constituency Proposals.pdf" >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="Letter to the Chair of the Board on Status of Liaison >> Statement on Consumer and Other Constituency Proposals.pdf" >> X-Attachment-Id: f_fyuuigd30 >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Letter to the Chair #A3168C.pdf (PDF >> /«IC») (00A3168C) >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> > > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] BOARD APPROVES 1AT-LARGE VOTINGDIRECTOR
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Thanks Roberto. For those without a sufficiently long history in ICANN, prior to his current NomCom appointment to the ICANN Board starting in 2006, Roberto was an ALAC member and served as the ALAC Liaison to the Board. So he does have a sufficiently long and detailed knowledge of ALAC to make this a true compliment. Alan At 31/08/2009 12:47 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >My personal opinion is that time has passed between the Westlake >report and the Board vote, and in between ALAC has produced results. >If I compare the discussions on the Board just to get the agreement >for the Summit, and the discussions these days, there is a huge difference. >Of course, the ALAC Review WG, the Board Review WG, the SIC, etc. >have pointed out the acquired maturity of ALAC, and therefore it has >been possible to successfully argue the case (although we settled on >1 voting director as a compromise between 2 and 0). But the real >factor that has determined this result is simply the fact that ALAC >is delivering: it went a long way since the discussions about >matters of principle in the beginning and the concrete proposals, >that led to policy decisions, that we are witnessing these days. >This process was underway when Westlake was producing its report. >They could not have guessed the results, but now we know. >So, congratulations to all of you in ALAC for years of hard work >that are now bringing results, and with the results the recognition. > >Cheers, >Roberto

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Agenda today's call
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Hello Patrick Falstrom Thank you for your response to this message and for your positive comments which are very encouraging. I feel that this can still be considered for the Seoul schedule. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2009/8/31 Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se>: > > On 31 aug 2009, at 16.59, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> The suggestion is to have inter-constituency meetings during Seoul where >> ccNSO, GNSO and its commercial and non-commercial constituencies, GAC, ALAC, >> SSAC as also Board Representatives, Staff designated for IDNs, finance and >> administration committees, IETF, external advisory / support groups, IDN >> user groups otherwise not part of the ICANN organization and invited experts >> could all gather together in one room on a suitable day during the Seoul >> Meeting to discuss all pending issues related to IDN implementation. The >> purpose is to bring together view points from the different constituencies / >> support organizations / experts to reconcile the most important issues that >> could consume time if discussed in different rooms. > > FWIW, I think this is a good idea, and it will in general move ICANN one > step forward regarding multistakeholder participation. Reason for this is > that there is some view out there that ICANN Constituencies stop working > when each one of them have reached a consensus -- the rest of the consensus > building (across constituences) are left as an exercise for ICANN staff and > of course the Board. > > So I strongly support this initiative. Not only for IDN discussions but in > general for ICANN. I think there should be a broader consensus in general > before decisions are made. Call me conservative, but we play with dangerous > goods here (the global DNS system). > > Regards, Patrik [that for many unfortunate reasons called in 40 min late, > but did not hear anyone, so that was too late] > > >

1 0

IDN Liasion's Report
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Hello CLO, 1. I have posted the liaison's report at page http://bit.ly/alacidnaug as also attached as a PDF document here. Please let me know if any improvements are needed on this short update. 2. Following the IDN PDP working group call I have sent this message to the group. (The suggestion for inter-constituency meetings is more clearly expressed in this message) I have made a mention of this in the working group, rather than assume that it is too late to think of meetings of this nature for the Seoul meeting. More importantly, your recommendations as Chair of ALAC could get other constituencies and participant groups to pay attention to this suggestion. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Agenda today's call To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Cc: "ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org" <ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hello Bart Boswinkel, I am sending this note AFTER the meeting, but this was intended to be raised as a suggestion under "any other business". As an introductory statement to the ALAC comments on the 3rd Revison of the Draft Implementation Plan http://bit.ly/idnmeeting the following was stated: "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter‐constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave the way for implementation." This has also been mentioned at an ALAC meeting, though not formally discussed nor voted upon as an ALAC suggestion. The suggestion is to have inter-constituency meetings during Seoul where ccNSO, GNSO and its commercial and non-commercial constituencies, GAC, ALAC, SSAC as also Board Representatives, Staff designated for IDNs, finance and administration committees, IETF, external advisory / support groups, IDN user groups otherwise not part of the ICANN organization and invited experts could all gather together in one room on a suitable day during the Seoul Meeting to discuss all pending issues related to IDN implementation. The purpose is to bring together view points from the different constituencies / support organizations / experts to reconcile the most important issues that could consume time if discussed in different rooms. The inter-constituency meetings could be visualized as happening in the main room on a certain day (or half - a - day) which is relatively a light day for most constituencies, who could also be free to concurrently have their sessions on any other topic that may require to be discussed within their constituencies, but after assigning enough responsible participants to the proposed inter-constituency meetings. This could also be an opportunity for various IDN working groups to report on their work for consolidation. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ALAC IDN Liaison.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Agenda today's call
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 31, 2009

Aug. 31, 2009

Hello Bart Boswinkel, I am sending this note AFTER the meeting, but this was intended to be raised as a suggestion under "any other business". As an introductory statement to the ALAC comments on the 3rd Revison of the Draft Implementation Plan http://bit.ly/idnmeeting the following was stated: "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter‐constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave the way for implementation." This has also been mentioned at an ALAC meeting, though not formally discussed nor voted upon as an ALAC suggestion. The suggestion is to have inter-constituency meetings during Seoul where ccNSO, GNSO and its commercial and non-commercial constituencies, GAC, ALAC, SSAC as also Board Representatives, Staff designated for IDNs, finance and administration committees, IETF, external advisory / support groups, IDN user groups otherwise not part of the ICANN organization and invited experts could all gather together in one room on a suitable day during the Seoul Meeting to discuss all pending issues related to IDN implementation. The purpose is to bring together view points from the different constituencies / support organizations / experts to reconcile the most important issues that could consume time if discussed in different rooms. The inter-constituency meetings could be visualized as happening in the main room on a certain day (or half - a - day) which is relatively a light day for most constituencies, who could also be free to concurrently have their sessions on any other topic that may require to be discussed within their constituencies, but after assigning enough responsible participants to the proposed inter-constituency meetings. This could also be an opportunity for various IDN working groups to report on their work for consolidation. Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ALAC IDN Liaison. On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org>wrote: > Dear all, > Included is proposed agenda for today’s call. As this is first meeting, the > suggested focus of the call is on administrative matters. > > 1. Welcome and agenda bashing > 2. Selection of chair for WG + alternate chair from members of the WG > 3. Deliverable Seoul meeting (WG Topic Paper*). > 4. WG working method > 5. Working Group meeting schedule > 6. AOB > 7. Closure > > > > * WG Topic Paper > The WG shall publish for public consultation a Topic Paper on the topics > and issues, which > in the view of the WG need to be taken into consideration to propose a > feasible policy for > the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs (the Issues)..... The > consultation should include a public > discussion with the relevant stakeholders at a designated ICANN meeting. > > > Kind regards, > Bart >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] WELCOME to ALL NEW APPOINTEES and specially our new ALACMEMBERS!!
by carlos aguirre Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

Welcome to all. Specially my dear bro Carlton and my friend Olga, and great George. ICANN have a clear future whith them Carlos Aguirre ------Mensaje original------ De: Vanda Scartezini Para: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Para: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Para: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: [ALAC] WELCOME to ALL NEW APPOINTEES and specially our new ALACMEMBERS!! Enviado: 30 Ago 2009 13:31 Warm welcome to the new ALAC members! I wish them all a huge success and a high contribution to ALAC's development and I hope at the end of your term the ALSs have turn to more than 500 around the world!! Best wishes to all! Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac <http://st.icann.org/alac> Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® de Claro Argentina

1 0

WELCOME to ALL NEW APPOINTEES and specially our new ALAC MEMBERS!!
by Vanda Scartezini Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

Warm welcome to the new ALAC members! I wish them all a huge success and a high contribution to ALAC's development and I hope at the end of your term the ALSs have turn to more than 500 around the world!! Best wishes to all! Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464

1 0

Welcome to our New ALAC Nom Com appointees!!
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 30, 2009

Aug. 30, 2009

we have our new NomCom appointees from the Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin american & Caribbean regions see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28aug09-en.htm a Huge Welcome aboard to all of you I look forward to working with all of you in the ALAC and I'm sure I speak for everyone else in the Regional, ALS, and wider At-Large when I say we look forward to incorporating your expertise, views and energy into our policy development work and discussions over the next 2 years... Staff can we ensure they are joined to our lists and that an Announce message goes out ASAP -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) announcement text for ALAC NomCom appointments 2009-2011 is copied below... *<snip> ALAC* *James Seng* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Asia/Australia/Pacific. James will bring his significant expertise on IDN (internationalized domain names) to bear on At Large discussions, and can also share his experience of Internet issues in several Asian countries; including Malaysia, Singapore and China where he now resides. James is the CEO of Zodiac Holdings, a company focused on IDN gTLDs in Asia. James is also Chief Technology Officer of the Shanghai Synacast Media Tech. Co, a member of the Executive Committee of the Singapore Advance Research and Education Network, and a committee member of the Internet and New Media Committee of Media Development Authority of Singapore. Previously, James has been a partner in Thymos Capital LLP 2007-2008, and worked as Assistant Director, Next Generation Network, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore from 2003-2006. James is or has been involved in numerous Internet-related groups and committees including the Asia Pacific IPv6 Task Force, Internet Engineering Task Force, ICANN's IDN Registry Implementation Committee, Domain Name Technical Committeeof the Singapore Network Information Center, Asia Pacific Internet Association. He also served as Co-chair of the IDN Working Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1999-2003 and Chair of the iDNS Working Group, Asia Pacific Networking Group, 1998-2000. James' educational background includes a Bachelor of Information Technology, Software Engineering, Australian National University, 1996-1999 *Carlton Samuels* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Latin America / Caribbean. Carlton brings significant Caribbean experience and knowledge, and also an ability to facilitate consensus-building with the Latin American Internet community from his work as LACRALO secretariat. Carlton works as a consultant and an adjunct lecturer at the Information Science Faculty of Humanities & Education in the University of the West Indies at Mona Kingston, Jamaica. He is a Jamaican and US national. Previously, Carlton has worked as CIO & University Director of IT, University of the West Indies, Managing Director, Mona Informatix, as a registrar for the .jm ccTLD and VP, Network Systems, Neal & Massy Corporation as a senior executive with responsibility for regional network and telecommunications business segment for the largest Caribbean-based multinational. Carlton's current and previous volunteer positions include being a foundation member of and the current secretariat for the Latin America and Caribbean Regional At-Large Advisory Organization (LACRALO), member of the advisory boards of Microsoft Partners in Learning and the Project Advisory Board of the Caribbean Universities Project for Integrated Distance Education (CUPIDE). Carlton has also been a member of the CARICOM ICT Task Force, a regional ICT leadership position charged with developing a cohesive ICT policy framework for Caribbean governments. Carlton's educational background includes a degree in Natural Sciences from The University of the West Indies, a postgraduate degree in management information systems from George Mason University, US, and a postgraduate diploma in corporate strategy from the Sloan School of Management at MIT. *Dave Kissoondoyal* has been appointed as an At Large Advisory Committee member from Africa. Dave will be an invaluable asset to the ALAC given his experience in Internet governance and the Internet Society, whose Mauritius chapter he founded. Dave is Director of Information Technology at Teleforma (Mauritius), Ltd - A US Upstream Company. Previously, Dave was Group Technical Director and Chief Technology Officer for the Bowman Group of Companies. Dave is a member of the Public Interest Registry .ORG Advisory Council, a member of the African Stakeholders Network (ASN) of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force and has been an Ambassador of the Internet Society to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Dave's other volunteer work includes acting at different times as Secretary, Treasurer and President (CEO) of Save the Children Mauritius. He also founded the Internet Society of Mauritius and is its president. Dave's education background includes a qualification in electronics from the University of Mauritius, in information systems management from the Mauritius Institute of Management / University of Surrey, United Kingdom, and in electronics from the City and Guilds of London Institute. He speaks English, French and Hindi. <end snip>

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 28, 2009

Aug. 28, 2009

Hello Here is a blog post that I found on the Tornoto meeting. It may be of interest: http://tldne.ws/2009/08/icann-blog-the-community-view-registryregistrar-reg… Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > At Large Summit working groups 1 and 4 made reference to these meetings: > > WG1: "For regional meetings, all members of Bylaw-recognized bodies from > that region should receive travel and expense support on the same basis and > to the same extent as at International Meetings." > > WG 4: "Opening up the periodic ICANN regional meetings to participants > concerned with the public interest from the region concerned." > > Suggest that a minimum is for all ICANN meetings to included on the meeting > calender, agenda's published, input and outcome documents made available. > If no transcripts, then detailed notes of what was discussed should be > provided as a default. > > When the agenda's published, all Bylaw-recognized bodies from the region be > given the opportunity to attend if the agenda is relevant to their issues. > If these are set as the basic operating principles, then whether At Large > should be represented could be more on a needs/case by case basis. I don't > think the community needs more meetings it must send representatives too. > Over three week's year is enough, and the relevant work should be > concentrated in the three main ICANN meetings. > > Adam > > > > > > At 5:50 PM +0200 8/27/09, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > >> There was a similar meeting some time ago in Rome, Italy for European >> registrars. Although it was not a "secret" meeting, it was mainly >> advertised to the target population, and not outside of it. >> >> From what I heard from participants, the content was about business >>> >> relations between ICANN and its registrars and exchange of best >> practices among them. There was no discussion about policy issues. >> >> I take your point though that it is rather inelegant to use you for >> information about hotels and not invite you to the event itself. Even if >> you would not be allowed to attend the meetings themselves, you could >> have at least talked to registrars about At-Large's concerns. >> >> We could suggest for future meetings to have a point on the agenda to >> address domain registrant issues, featuring an At-Large representative. >> >> Patrick >> >> >> >> Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 26/8/09 18:36: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> On Saturday it came to my attention that ICANN held a secret meeting for >>> registrars and registries in Toronto. >>> >>> Why do I claim it was secret? Because there was no advance notice of the >>> meeting on ICANN's website, and the results were published only after >>> the meeting was over. >>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm >>> >>> Living in Toronto, I was actually consulted back in March about local >>> hotels; at the time I explicitly asked to be invited to observe. That's >>> how I know there was no advance notice of the meeting, I was routinely >>> checking after the hotel inquiry. And I certainly received no notice of >>> the meeting, let alone an invitation. >>> >>> Who knows how many other meetings like this have happened, without >>> notice before (or may be even after) they took place? >>> >>> Now... why is it that what At-Large does is always under the microscope, >>> our requests for funding for regional and outreach meetings denied, and >>> others are welcome to sit in on our proceedings, but the same rules >>> don't apply to contracted parties? This would have been a perfect >>> opportunity to co-host a NARALO meeting, with ICANN already having >>> booked favourable room rates etc. At very least, I (and others) should >>> have been offered the courtesy to attend as observers. I explicitly >>> recall at the Summit, that the registrar people who inserted themselves >>> into our working group dicussions were quiet explicit that their >>> meetings were as publicly accesible as ours. Apparently that claim was a >>> lie. >>> >>> I am extremely angry over this in a want-to-get-the-Ombudsman-involved >>> way; I request a response from ICANN staff and I am asking for ALAC's >>> support in this inquiry. As it is unlikely that At-Large staff were >>> aware of this meeting either, I am asking for its help in identifying >>> >> > the source of this clandestine activity. We are owed an explanation of >> >>> why some ICANN constituencies get to have secret, private regional >>> meetings but others do not get to have regional meetings -- private or >>> public -- at all. >>> >>> - Evan >>> >>> >> -- >> Patrick Vande Walle >> Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu >> Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu >> facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0