Hi Olivier, You should just have asked me about the location ;o) They are all getting together in Geneva. Now isn't that peculiar but it isn't especially when all of them will be there for the IGF Open Consultations and MAG meeting......and yes, its a closed space and non one else from the community is invited............very accurate indeed Olivier... ...and just in case anyone may has noticed it or not, if you go to the sponsorship page of the ICANN meeting page at http://meetings.icann.org/sponsorship , ICANN has increased the sponsorship costs by factors of 2.5 to 10, so much about "multi-stakeholder" and bottom-up stuff. Top sponsorship per ICANN meeting is half a million dollars and the minimum sponsorship to have a stand was increased to USD 25K from USD 10K. This excludes alot of stakaeholders and people that may want to also set-up stall and raise awareness about their groups. This creates a feeling of shaking trust (anti-trust) in ICANN practices and motivations. On the other hand within Internet Governance Has ICANN been scared down with what is happening within the IGF with regards to the intergovernmental control of the forum and pushing ICANN behind as one of the members of the multistakeholdership that no one listened to during the open consultations or is this bending to the pressure being built inside? The pressure on ICANN is not only being built from inside only, its flowing from the IGF and ITU as well. Would governments and ICANN control or technically coordinate an Internet that had no more users because they scared them off with the threat of arrests, violation of their rights, failing protection, abuse of powers etc??? I know it sounds like a fairy tale but just think for a moment, is the Internet a space for innovation and human socio-economic growth or is it a means to control? Which side are these guys on now? Okay back to the general thing................I could have gained more insight in to this from the IGF community but I am not getting supported to go to the Geneva meetings either for the IGF or so............... No objection from me as well but now you have the confirmed location. Why, because IGF activities and ICANN - GAC interaction are going to happen around the same space.....and by the way, how did everyone forget ITU and GAC? Best Fouad On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear ALAC members,
you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place.
Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the essence, so please read this: ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC **
The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process.
I look forward to your feedback.
Thanks,
Olivier
--- body of the letter ---
The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity, after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out of the decision process. [ this will be replaced by: "which is made with agreement of ALAC" ]
Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice, discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report to their governments and their stakeholders. As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies.
Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages & inconvenients. Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly has its validity. Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food. Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time.
I therefore propose: - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time allocated for meetings. - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General Meeting (AGM). - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)". - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their presence. - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak through them.
Yours sincerely,
--- cut here ---
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac