July 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

At 22/07/2010 03:52 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Good to hear from you and hope all is well. > >Thank you for your reply and comments and you have my support for all >the points you shared/forwarded in your first email. I just forwarded >recommendations and/or thoughts. Yes, the current state is very >different from what it must have been in the past. > >Also just for the future, is it possible that when we forward >recommendations or ideas for improvements with out the intention of >creating further debate, the text be limited because I am finding it a >bit painful having each point being pondered and debated and me >responding whereas that wasn't the intention at all. Its a set of >thoughts/recommendation being based on an experience. Okay, I couldn't >frame point 2 validly but still. Well, I forwarded what I had written, so the size was what it was. I find it refreshing that there were comments of any form - sadly often not the case. If ALAC decides to do anything with this, timing is very important, so I thought it important to identify areas of difference and make sure they were understood. That is why I was trying to make sure I understood where you were just agreeing (always a pleasure!) and where you were proposing alternative answers. >Just an ending point, phone numbers won't work for us because that >becomes an overkill in our case. If I dial-out once, Pakistani global >roaming drains credit balance. Happens in many other countries around >here too. Again, its just a recommendation, it can be trashed. Problem is not unique to Pakistani roaming. You don't want to see what my Canadian company charges (which is why I always get a local SIM if available at a reasonable price). But if no other means of contact is possible, it is an option. In fact, usually one can find SOME ICANN staff or hotel staff willing to call them. I do think that the problem is real, but we need to find a more innovative way to address it than having a desk staffed 24-7. But in any case, that is an operational issue and not fully related to the travel arrangements. I do note that very unfortunately, at recent meetings, several people had to leave early due to emergencies, and ICANN staff addressed they needs SUPERBLY! Alan >Best > >Fouad

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

As noted in my last reply to Fouad (we seem to have written these replies in parallel), I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I don't think it is one that we need to take up with the CFO. Alan At 22/07/2010 09:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >The existence of an emergency contact number is >just that -- for emergencies. If you'd note from >the spreadsheets that Alan sends out to all >travellers, even us rich-country folk have >roaming turned off when travelling. An on-site >emergency number can be dialled by a hotel >conciÃ¨rge, other ICANN staff, police or helpful >locals. Or you could send an SMS to it, which is >much cheaper than a call. (One possible >recommendation is that the emergency number >ought to be local to the host country ... at >least one travel staff phone should have a local >number, so that you don't have to call >California from Kenya to find someone in the >next room. Alan, could you possibly build that into your comments?)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

In reply to both Evan and Beau... I am only suggesting that it be ALLOWED and only if within the budget guidelines. I was specifically thinking of long haul flights. Although quite a number of airlines are now offering such service, my own experience is with British Airlines and Qantas. In both cases, there is a fair amount more leg and shoulder room, slightly more seat recline, a powerport. Service and food generally are on a par with economy, but those differences make a world of a change for a 6-14 hour flight. And if booked early, often does not cost all that much. Beau, I am not sure what you mean by "for fear that premium economy might be institutionalized". Evan, not sure what you mean by easier upgrades. Not true with any airline that I am familiar with. United's E+ is a joke, and a bad one at that. Alan At 21/07/2010 04:13 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >evan wrote: > >As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of >that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets >some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage >points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of >people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business >class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this >one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few >airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that >have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those >cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features >alone are worth it. > >> >I'd be careful about mentioning this, for fear premium economy might >get institutionalized. If you're talking about seat comfort, the >only premium economy worth flying is Virgin, and even then only >certain routes. On United premium economy means about four inches >more legroom in the usual uncomfortable cattle seat. It's better to >fly JetBlue economy than United premium. > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >Sent: Jul 21, 2010 3:34 PM > >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > > > >On 21 July 2010 15:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > >> Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel?? > >> > > > > > >I personally most like your proposal to let individuals make their own > >bookings if within budget. The ICANN appointed travel agents have just blown > >it too many times. Also, if someone knows the're eligible to go long enough > >in advance, they can book the flight months ahead (not weeks), saving ICANN > >many hundreds of dollars in costs. The formal process is so slow to get > >moving, many of the low fares are gone by the time they even send out the > >paperwork. > > > >Another good reason for the claims approach to booking air travel is that it > >allows the traveller to pay for the difference if the specific itinerary > >they want is too far over budget. So far it's been an absolute yes/no call > >with the traveller not being able to "top up" the cost of a more-expensive > >option. > > > >I also strongly approve of your comments dissuading against use of > >charter/vacation airlines. I was booked on one for part of my trip to > >Brussels (Thomas Cook Air) and wouldn't recommend that to an enemy. > > > >As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of > >that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets > >some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage > >points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of > >people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business > >class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this > >one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few > >airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that > >have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those > >cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features > >alone are worth it. > > > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ > >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

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Beau Brendler July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

evan wrote: As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features alone are worth it. >> I'd be careful about mentioning this, for fear premium economy might get institutionalized. If you're talking about seat comfort, the only premium economy worth flying is Virgin, and even then only certain routes. On United premium economy means about four inches more legroom in the usual uncomfortable cattle seat. It's better to fly JetBlue economy than United premium. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jul 21, 2010 3:34 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > >On 21 July 2010 15:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel?? >> > > >I personally most like your proposal to let individuals make their own >bookings if within budget. The ICANN appointed travel agents have just blown >it too many times. Also, if someone knows the're eligible to go long enough >in advance, they can book the flight months ahead (not weeks), saving ICANN >many hundreds of dollars in costs. The formal process is so slow to get >moving, many of the low fares are gone by the time they even send out the >paperwork. > >Another good reason for the claims approach to booking air travel is that it >allows the traveller to pay for the difference if the specific itinerary >they want is too far over budget. So far it's been an absolute yes/no call >with the traveller not being able to "top up" the cost of a more-expensive >option. > >I also strongly approve of your comments dissuading against use of >charter/vacation airlines. I was booked on one for part of my trip to >Brussels (Thomas Cook Air) and wouldn't recommend that to an enemy. > >As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of >that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets >some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage >points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of >people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business >class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this >one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few >airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that >have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those >cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features >alone are worth it. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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

Comment on Revised ICANN Meeting Site Selection Process
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

For your information, I have submitted a personal comment on the Revised ICANN Meeting Site Selection Process - http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssp-feedback. It is very short: >I strongly support this revised process. >The description is silent on what meetings will covered in the 21 >July 2010 announcement. I would hope that the announcement and the >internal ICANN site identification process will be looking several >years out as is the norm for meetings of this type. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [AT-Review] FW: ICANN Terrorism verification
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

You should also note that this has been raised (separately) by At-Large Members as a point of concern from DAG v4 for the attention and follow up by the ALAC at our recent ExCom Meeting and therefore will be an Agenda Item for us at our ALAC Meeting at the end of the month several of our Regional Meetings will also no doubt be discussing and reacting to this matter as well... So the community concern is wider than what many of us hard raised in Brussels and contained in this statement. Specifically ALAC will be asking where did this 'text' "come from" as an addition into DAGv4 what bottom up process or community ' stakeholder processes were involved etc., regarding this matter etc., More on that after the formality of our community discussions and next meeting. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 21 July 2010 00:56, Brian Cute <briancute(a)afilias.info> wrote: > RT, > > > > Please not the following submission that was addressed to me in my capacity > as Chair of the ATRT. > > > > Regards, > > Brian > > > > *From:* Fattal LMTranslator [mailto:Fattal@LMTranslator.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 1:59 PM > *To:* Peter Dungate Thrush; Rod Beckstrom; heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Brian > Cute > *Cc:* Bruce Tonkin; George Sadowsky; Mike Silber; Katim Touray; Steve > Crocker; vanda scartezini; Rajasekhar.Ramaraj(a)icann.org; Sam Longworth > *Subject:* ICANN Terrorism verification > *Importance:* High > > > > Dear Rod, Peter, Heather, Brian and all Board members, > > > > I hope this finds you all well. You will recall, and as a matter of public > record, I had first raised part of this subject on the afternoon of the > Public Forum during the ICANN Brussels meeting June 24, 2010. Peter, as > chairman, requested I send a written statement on this matter which I > agreed. And as per my subsequent conversation with Rod after the conclusion > of the Brussels board meeting I feel the gravity of this matter requires it > being addressed to you all directly. > > > > Please find attached my full statement on this matter. You may proceed to > post it on the ICANN website, in the interest of transparency, as it > significantly supplements my Public Forum statement. > > > > Warmest Regards, > > > > Khaled > > > > Khaled Fattal > Chairman and CEO > The Multilingual Internet Group > Linking Together The Current & Next Multi-Billion Multilingual Internet > Users > > *Ankabooot Global Social Network, www.Ankabooot.com > * Live Multilingual Translator, www.LMTranslator.com > *WebSynegys Inc. www.WebSynergys.com > *ArabicSSL Web Certification www.ArabicSSL.net > *Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, (MINC) www.minc.org > > Member of ICANN President's Advisory Committee on IDNs (ICANN) > www.icann.org > Personal blog: www.khaledfattal.blogspot.com > > > > Office of the Chairman > Email: Fattal(a)LMTranslator.com > UK > +44 8707 119 050 office > +44 7006 052 970 Fax > +44 7860 866 841 Mobile > USA > + 1 323-230 0559 Direct > + 1 270-518 3274 Fax > > > _______________________________________________ > AT-Review mailing list > AT-Review(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-discussion] RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

And as the 'Normal monthly' Meeting for the ALAC is at the end of any Month I would like to state that any extension given (and I personally support a corresponding extension being given in line with what Chuck has said below) for AC/SO endorsements to be provided is a very good thing as long as it is at the beginning of (days 1=>10 or so) or very end (30/31st) of a month Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 17 July 2010 01:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > I know intentions were good Olof and as you know I was okay with the > extension if the deadline for GNSO endorsements was correspondingly > extended. What caught me off guard was that the extension was granted > without the extension of the end of August deadline for SO/AC endorsements > without GNSO input. I have been encouraging SGs to work hard to implement > the GNSO process and to now ask them to rush their processes further without > their concurrence seemed like the wrong thing to do. > > I also respect Heather's request for the extension and support it as long > as the GNSO is still able to adequately use a bottom-up process to endorse > candidates. > > Regarding the way forward, I personally believe that a 12 September > delivery date for SO/AC endorsements would work well but want GNSO > participants to weigh in on that. In fact, because the Council list is > included in this communication, I welcome Councilors to comment on this > distribution if they like. I will also send a message to the Council list > directly requesting feedback and ask Councilors to seek input from their > groups as possible. Of course, all of this needs to happen quickly. > > Chuck > <original text from message snipped here CLO> >

1 0

Fwd: DAG v4 Public Comments from GNSO BC constituency for our information and possible action.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Hello all... In my emails today I have received these DAG v4 Public Comments from GNSO BC constituency for our information and possible action, (you will remember the BC reached out to us previously re DAG 3 and what they felt might be mutual concerns and interest points) which I am passing on to both the ALAC for their consideration and to this end will have an Agenda Item set for say 10-15 mins discussion on DAG4 and new gTLD matters at our July Meeting and of course for the consideration and possible action by our new gTLD WG (should this WG have any contributions on this or other DAG4 matters by our meeting that would be appreciated and we can also set some time aside to hear from any Members present at the meeting as well. Evan can you let me know if there is anything we can do to facilitate the WG's activities on this => perhaps set up a call with some members of the BC etc., ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Andruff <ra(a)dotsportllc.com> Date: 14 July 2010 01:01 Subject: DAG v4 Public Comments To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Tony Holmes < tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "Steven J. Metalitz" <met(a)msk.com> Dear all, As you know the BC, in large measure driven by me in this case, took issue with four aspects of DAGv3, namely: · ICANN Staff Recommendations for Rights Protection Mechanisms · Translations of Strings from ASCII to Other Scripts or Languages · Revised Comparative Evaluation Scoring · Market Differentiation Between New gTLDs The entire BC comment is attached for your ease of reference. While I do not know (and would like to hear from others that are better informed) what happened with regard to our first issue, RPMs, I do know that the BC’s other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I have spoken with each of you along this path to new gTLDs on various occasions about these issues, Steve has taken up the mantle with me most recently in Brussels regarding Comparative Evaluation Scoring, but we need your so/constituencies to weigh in as well. I know that there was some timing difficulties in your getting positions out the last comment period, so I am hopeful that you can pick up on these important issues this time around. Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to assist you in supporting these important issues. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff President & CEO dotSport LLC 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 +1 212 481-2820 ext. 11 Visit us at: www.dotSportLLC.com *Click **here* <http://www.dotsportllc.com/index.php?pageId=27>* for dotSportLLC's latest update!*

4 6

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Director proposed bylaw recommendations
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

Note the PC announcement 'came out' about an hour ago... see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul10-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul10-en.htm> Staff can you insure an 'announce' goes out to all the relevant lists please... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 23 June 2010 17:49, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached an electronic version of the proposed Bylaw > recommendations for the At-Large Director. > > > > The document will be posted to the ALAC-Announce list on Friday and shortly > to the At-Large Director and BCEC workspaces. Additionally, a wiki page will > be created that will serve as an At-Large space for the collection of > comments on this document to feed into the ALAC response to the public > consultation. > > > > Discussion time will be allocated during the ALAC and Regional Leadership > Wrap-Up Session scheduled for Thursday, 24 June between 08:00-09:00. > > > > Kind regards, > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Ullrich > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Absc] FW: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

I'll have them put up as a linked document to our BCEC site (referenced to the meeting we will have next week as it will be an Agenda Item*), as well as the main Wiki page re recommendations #2 and the ABSdt area... * other main issue to look at is update on the Call for SOI, and discussion of timing and release of information on SOI applicants to the public record (as recently discussed on list) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 2 July 2010 21:27, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: > Good afternoon: > > The proposed bylaws changes are not attached. > I suppose they have been amended with reference to the first draft that was > circulating informally in Brussels. > > Regards, CW > > > On 01 Jul 2010, at 20:27, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > Looks fine to me, and I do see that to fit into the time table ( for Board > Meetings etc.,) to allow for the seating of the at-large selected ICANN > Board Member in the Dec 2010 ICANN clearly needs to start the PC on July 1 > (UTC) we should indeed get this started... > > We are however noting (or predicting at least) that in the PC some of > comments {from at-large} you should expect to receive, will relate to > concerns discussed in some of our meetings in Brussels, specifically about > Section 8. g, (new); and the communities ability to attract a quality > candidate for a term limit of 6 months, and also that parts of the > community would still like to have a Liaison to the Board based on the ALAC > Reviews WG recommendation for 2 Director seats to be created ... But that > is what PC periods are for any way... To formally get such comments > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > On 1 July 2010 08:24, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Hi Cheryl, >> >> >> Please see attached the proposed At-Large Director bylaw changes PC that >> Sam wants to open tomorrow. If there are any major suggested revisions, >> please could you inform Sam directly (Samantha.eisner(a)icann.org)? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Heidi >> >> >> *From:* Samantha Eisner >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:24 AM >> *To:* Heidi Ullrich; David Olive >> *Cc:* Matthias Langenegger >> *Subject:* Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan >> >> >> David, Heidi and Matthias - >> >> Attached is the proposed public comment forum language for the At-Large >> Bylaws. I’m going to have this forum opened tomorrow so that we can start >> receiving comment and continue the movement of the process. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions, >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> >> >> On 6/30/10 10:06 AM, "Heidi Ullrich" <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Depending on what the Board requires by a summary (the dashboard seems a >> good way to proceed), I believe we could aim for the August meeting. >> >> Kind regards, >> Heidi >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From*: David Olive >> *To*: Samantha Eisner; Olof Nordling; Heidi Ullrich >> *Cc*: Matthias Langenegger; Alice Jansen >> *Sent*: Wed Jun 30 10:02:17 2010 >> *Subject*: Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan >> Sam: >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> Not sure how much progress we can show by mid-July. >> >> We are planning a “dashboard” reporting concept similar to the one devised >> for the GNSO improvements (still uner refinement). Maybe we cold present >> the reporting concept. >> >> I will confer with my At Large colleagues. >> >> Many thanks, David >> >> >> On 6/30/10 12:55 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> The next Board meeting is August 5. If you’d like this to be considered >> for the agenda, I believe that proposed agenda items must be identified to >> Diane by 13 July, and then the Board submission should be completed by 23 >> July. (The interim due dates may change slightly, but that’s a rough >> outline). >> >> If a summary cannot be produced in time, the next meeting is on 28 October >> 2010. >> >> >> On 6/30/10 9:54 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Sam: >> >> Could you tell us when the next Board meeting will be for this report? >> >> Or will it be for the November retreat? >> >> I will coordinate with Heidi and Seth on this. >> >> Regards, David >> >> >> On 6/30/10 12:24 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Actually, the Board modified the resolution and would like to have a >> summary of the ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan provided to it for >> consideration at its next meeting. David and Heidi, can you please >> coordinate with Seth to have a summary produced? (I don’t know what they >> are looking for, only that they want a summary . . . ) >> >> On the Bylaws, I’m going to be preparing a posting for public comment, >> hopefully today. Given that it’s Bylaws and ALAC related, John proposes >> that we have two responsible staff members listed in the public comment >> forum – me and presumably Heidi. Please let me know if there’s a more >> appropriate At-Large staff member to include. I’ll likely perform the >> summary and analysis of the comments, but may require assistance if there >> are a particular or specific issues arising in the public comment forum. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions - >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> -- >> Samantha Eisner >> Senior Counsel >> ICANN >> 4676 Admiralty Way #330 >> Marina del Rey, California 90292 >> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 >> Office Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> >> >> >> >> On 6/30/10 3:34 AM, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Heidi, >> Just a quick line to tell you that the ALAC Improvements Implementation >> Plan went thru the SIC with flying colours in Brussels and, as you surely >> have noticed, resulted in a Board resolution endorsing it. So you’re all >> good to go ahead with that oneJ >> Also, the Bylaws revisions for the seating of an At-Large Director on the >> Board went equally smoothly thru the SIC and the Board, so those will be >> posted for public comments as a first step (shortly, I trust). >> All the best >> Olof >> >> PS. I intend to use your Implementation Plan as an instructive example for >> other reviews that approach that stage – if you don’t mind, of course;-) >> >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 >> Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 >> >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 >> Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Bcec mailing list > Bcec(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bcec_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >

1 0