Clearly people ( especially volunteers!) can "only do what they can do" and this highlights in my opinion a systemic issue of public participation and an equity balance on input and opportunity in the ICANN world between those who have a derived benefit or remuneration/contracting support in their activities and those of us who Do Not! something we as ALAC need to address and work on in this next quarter in a number of ways but the IRT is a good example of why it is important to do so... I truly believe that it s the quality not the quantity of what you do in these things that really counts and my personal aim of wrapping a good WG as a support mechanism for this activity (*as well as to assist in getting the view 'from the edges' into any ALAC outcomes*) is to help you do just that... I assume that there will be no minimum participation criteria for th IRT as such and really the group will have to be satisfied with what ever you (and I would like to assume after our next meeting *our ALAC* reps into this can bring to the table... we learnt from the experience of supporting Alan as our rep in the GNSO restructuring of the User House activity that the considered voice of a group delivered in a timely manner by our rep can be a very powerful tool indeed and this is a model (and post Summit this is MORE important as it is one that can bring in the views from 'the edges') that we need to expand and build on... let's use this as a test case then... Also as part of leading by example I have asked staff to ensure that in the design of the Workspace for the ad hoc ALAC WG on this issue we have up front a list of members/participants in a grid that allows each of us to post our declaration of interest / background materials for public view transparency and continuous disclosure is something we should strongly "walk and talk" on this issue as well as many others... (in my case I just insert my ICANN Wiki page as that is where I keep things up to date) I've also asked that this space run under and use the existing new gTLD WG space as there is not just cross over but it needs to be treated as a proper subset activity I would also like to link the great work on new gTLD's done by the Summit WG on this topic as we need to integrate that great work into our next steps processes and build on the energy and success that the summit developed... That said I still like the North / South representation that you two both bring to the IRT as (hopefully endorsed) ALAC reps and we are getting a rather nice line up of supporters for your work in the WG I've proposed... CLO Brendler, Beau wrote:
Vanda,
That sounds like a reasonable approach.
Beau
-----Original Message----- From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@uol.com.br] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:28 PM To: Brendler, Beau; cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Evan Leibovitch' Cc: staff@atlarge.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [ALAC] Request for input from the ALAC into the IRT's work on trademark issues with the introduction of new gTLDs
Beau, neither do I. I am thinking in collecting input from our regions and put it forward as our suggestion for the issue. May be participate in a call after get the inputs. That's the best we can commit after a 10 days meeting in Mexico. Best, VANDA
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:15 PM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; Evan Leibovitch Cc: staff@atlarge.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for input from the ALAC into the IRT's work on trademark issues with the introduction of new gTLDs
Apparently there is some discussion going on about what exactly the time commitment is supposed to be.
Last I heard, it was a fairly firm commitment of 15 business days and possibly a couple of face-to-face meetings.
If this is the case, I can't commit right now to give three weeks of work days to ICANN for this process, especially since there are not a great deal of details about what exactly it entails. I'm already at max for ICANN volunteer work. That's why I suggested at the NA RALO call that perhaps someone like Seth Reiss, who is an intellectual property attorney, would like to stand in for me.
Am happy to contribute an essay or white paper on the consumer confusion issue to the group if it's germane, but my organization is not going to give me three weeks off to discuss intellectual property and new gTLDs.
I apologize for committing before I truly realized what the demands would be.
Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr [cheryl@hovtek.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:07 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: staff@atlarge.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for input from the ALAC into the IRT's work on trademark issues with the introduction of new gTLDs
<CLO>Hi Evan see my reply points inter-spaced below...
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Firstly I have included in the body of this message a copy in full, of a formal request from the President of the GNSO's Intellectual Property Constituency, Mr. Steve Metalitz, requesting ALAC specific input into
this
process in a very short time frame (we will add this to the Agenda for
our
March 24th ALAC Meeting) and pointing out the opportunity for individual (here I encourage also ALSes and RALO's to also respond directly) submissions to be provided directly to
*ip-issues@icann.org*<ip-issues@icann.org>.
Secondly two suitably qualified ALAC Members (in their individual
capacity)
have offered themselves to the IRT as Members these are Mr. Beau
Brendler,
and Ms. Vanda Scartezini, I would like at the ALAC Meeting to endorse
these
two IRT Members as formal representatives of the ALAC to this WG, and encourage discussion in the ALAC Working List regarding this matter prior
to
our discussion of this as an Agenda item at te March meeting as well...
I'm a little confused by this.
<CLO>Evan as far as I knew the deadline to propose members of the IRT was Friday, 13th March, and by the PDT time allocated I knew only of the names of Beau and Vanda being out forward... The IRT *is* looking fore Public Comment as outlined in the letter I got from Steve where he asked for specific ALAC input... If there is updated or different information circulating then I am not privy to that...
Beau brought up this issue at today's NARALO conference call and said that the IRT was looking for public participants. Is this need satisfied by the appointment of Beau and Vanda? Is your call only for members of an ALAC subcommittee or is the IRT looking for other participants?
<CLO> My call was specific to getting participation into an ALAC WG and that is deliberately set at a lower level of participation than what I understand the IRT per se is asking for... Hopefully we can get at least 2-3 people from each Region able to commit enough time to support Beau and Vanda as ALAC endorsed Reps to the IRT (I hope) as well as assist in formulating the basis for Regional and ALAC comments on the matter...
(I say this because I committed to help find more participants in the NARALO call; I'd just like clarity on the nature of the potential recruitment. Beau had mentioned that the committee was looking for a pretty heavy time committment amongst its members.
- Evan
<CLO> I hope you and each of the leaders in the RALO's can do the same either for the Ad-Hoc ALAC WG I am proposing OR on the IRT per se if my information is incorrect... I hope this helps perhaps Staff can confirm whether my assumptions on this have been correct or not...
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.