Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
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
It is one of the reason we specifically write in the context of IIC the following words: "In addition, At-Large (ALAC) supports regional meetings open to all the constituencies and not just select constituencies." Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] De la part de Evan Leibovitch Envoyé : mercredi 26 août 2009 18:36 À : At-Large Worldwide Cc : Stacy Hoffberg Objet : [ALAC] Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries?
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
_______________________________________________ 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
While waiting for anyone at all to offer any insight into the existence of private forums for other constituencies, I've taken the liberty of creating a group on Linkedin for ICANN At-Large. Right now this is a moderated group, meaning that it is closed to present and past members of ALSs, RALOs, ALAC and its liaisons. I chose Linkedin rather than, say, Facebook exactly because this is not meant to be a public book. Most of the people involved in At-Large are professionals, and many already have a presence on Linkedin. So far nine people have accepted the original invitations after only a few hours. If you think this is a bad idea, please say so... it can be taken down as quickly as it was created. But I think the value exists. ICANN has no moral justification to demand complete transparency from At-Large when it so aids other constituencies to operate by stealth. In any case, the Linkedin group is neither approved nor sanctioned by ICANN, and as such it's merely a place where people of like minds will gather to discuss... Formal discussions and decision-making will, of course, continue to be in open view, even if this is not the case everywhere in ICANN. I have already been asked by another NARALO member to raise this issue at our next meeting, with a possible outcome of NARALO launching a formal Ombudsman complaint even if we don't receive broader support. I would like to get the feedback of others in At-Large before proceeding. On one hand I would be complaining about the lack of response this issue has received since I raised it 13 hours ago. Then, having seen Cheryl's letter to the Board, I can fully understand the delay from ALAC. I do hope that eventually there will be more feedback, though. - Evan
Evan as a purely personal POV your experience with and complaint about the Toronto closed Industry meeting is a perfect example of why we needed to have the specific item of exploring better interaction at a Regional and local level between At-Large and 'ICANN' activities as the main focus of our chat with Rod Beckstrom earlier in the week, and of course it is my intention to use this as a shining example of what should be and indeed must be addressed and improved.. That said we do need to note Sebastien's specific response on the topic where he outlined where in a formal sense a call for exactly what you are asking support for is being made by ALAC... Re the Linked in Group great the more fora for discussion the better (as long as there is a conduit for the ruminations done on them to feed into the Regional and ALS policy work in WG's etc., and of course take its place in influencing ALAC advice and statements to the Board etc., but how do we get to join up are you sending invitations to people on Linked In first or what? as I'm already a linked in user I just searched and found the group here => http://tinyurl.com/mz85xm so I'm already in the list for acceptance as I asked to join the group but I assume there is a need to reach out to those Not currently in the Linked In network They also should note there is also another general ICANN Linked => LinkedICANN <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=51000&trk=anet_ug_hm> CLO 2009/8/27 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
While waiting for anyone at all to offer any insight into the existence of private forums for other constituencies, I've taken the liberty of creating a group on Linkedin for ICANN At-Large.
Right now this is a moderated group, meaning that it is closed to present and past members of ALSs, RALOs, ALAC and its liaisons.
I chose Linkedin rather than, say, Facebook exactly because this is not meant to be a public book. Most of the people involved in At-Large are professionals, and many already have a presence on Linkedin. So far nine people have accepted the original invitations after only a few hours.
If you think this is a bad idea, please say so... it can be taken down as quickly as it was created. But I think the value exists. ICANN has no moral justification to demand complete transparency from At-Large when it so aids other constituencies to operate by stealth. In any case, the Linkedin group is neither approved nor sanctioned by ICANN, and as such it's merely a place where people of like minds will gather to discuss... Formal discussions and decision-making will, of course, continue to be in open view, even if this is not the case everywhere in ICANN.
I have already been asked by another NARALO member to raise this issue at our next meeting, with a possible outcome of NARALO launching a formal Ombudsman complaint even if we don't receive broader support. I would like to get the feedback of others in At-Large before proceeding.
On one hand I would be complaining about the lack of response this issue has received since I raised it 13 hours ago. Then, having seen Cheryl's letter to the Board, I can fully understand the delay from ALAC. I do hope that eventually there will be more feedback, though.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Re the Linked in Group great the more fora for discussion the better (as long as there is a conduit for the ruminations done on them to feed into the Regional and ALS policy work in WG's etc., and of course take its place in influencing ALAC advice and statements to the Board etc., but how do we get to join up are you sending invitations to people on Linked In first or what?
Given that it's only been in existence for seven hours at the time I write this, there is still more to be done in setup. Most of At-Large people to whom I have a connection have been sent invitations. I would like to say "all" but I may have missed some inadvertently. In total more than 40 people have been invited so far and eight have already accepted. Still, there are many who are not yet on LinkedIn, and many who are but to whom I am not yet connected (and thus not able to invite). Right now the "ICANN At-Large" group should be searchable from within LinkedIn, at which point a request to join from any ALAC, RALO or ALS member will be speedily approved.
as I'm already a linked in user I just searched and found the group here => http://tinyurl.com/mz85xm
No need for the URL alias, the natural one is short enough: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2238621
so I'm already in the list for acceptance as I asked to join the group Hmm. Right now the management interface shows you as having been invited but not yet accepted. Let me know if you're having problems getting in.
but I assume there is a need to reach out to those Not currently in the Linked In network They also should note there is also another general ICANN Linked =>
LinkedICANN <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=51000&trk=anet_ug_hm>
Yes, that can be reached at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=51000 It serves a very different purpose, and is populated by domainers and staff as well as At-Large people. So far I have found that group to be of little benefit. - Evan
Dear Evan: We are checking into the background and will get back to all of you once we have more information. Evan Leibovitch wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
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
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@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
Adam Peake wrote, On 28/8/09 03:06:
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." OK, was this Toronto meeting a "regional meeting", as envisioned by by WG1 or rather a meeting of the staff with a specific group on a specific topic ? We need a definition of what this concept of "regional meeting" covers. Otherwise, any meeting of the staff with more than one person could be considered a "regional meeting", where all stakeholders should be present. I do not think this is what we want.
Patrick
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Adam Peake wrote, On 28/8/09 03:06:
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."
OK, was this Toronto meeting a "regional meeting", as envisioned by by WG1 or rather a meeting of the staff with a specific group on a specific topic ?
The Toronto meeting was explicitly designed for contracted parties. There are indeed two separate issues here: 1) That this should have been an open meeting that could be attended by us even if it was not targeted to us 2) That this might have been a convenient time and place to co-locate a RALO regional meeting, as ICANN staff were already attending, preferential hotel rates had been negotiated, etc. My immediate issue is (1), the secrecy of the event. After we get past that issue -- as well as those related to funding At-Large regional events -- we can talk about co-locating our regional events next to those held for contracted parties. - Evan
At 1:44 PM -0400 8/28/09, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
Adam Peake wrote, On 28/8/09 03:06:
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." OK, was this Toronto meeting a "regional meeting", as envisioned by by WG1 or rather a meeting of the staff with a specific group on a specific topic ?
The Toronto meeting was explicitly designed for contracted parties. There are indeed two separate issues here:
1) That this should have been an open meeting that could be attended by us even if it was not targeted to us
2) That this might have been a convenient time and place to co-locate a RALO regional meeting, as ICANN staff were already attending, preferential hotel rates had been negotiated, etc.
My immediate issue is (1), the secrecy of the event. After we get past that issue -- as well as those related to funding At-Large regional events -- we can talk about co-locating our regional events next to those held for contracted parties.
Some information about the Toronto meeting available: <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-25aug09-en.htm> Whatever... my main concern is also with the secrecy of these events. They might or might not be relevant to other constituencies, but if we are to every find out at a minimum they should be listed on the ICANN meeting schedule with the meeting theme/reason and agenda published well in advance. Once information about the meeting is available we'd be in a better position to judge if At Large and others should attend. Adam
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
Very good point Patrick to have addressed registrants interest I all meeting concerned to gTLDs and ccTLds can give a perspective to the responsibles for these business about issues concerning to their clients. 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 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:51 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Why is ICANN holding secret meetings with registrars/registries? 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@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
Evan, According to some tweets, you were not the only one excluded from this meeting. So was Richard Sexton. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/observations/dns/events/icann/meetings/toronto In parallel, AFNIC's CEO, Mathieu Weill argued with ICANN staff and registrars that these meetings should be open to those very registrars' customers. At least, At-Large are not the only ones thinking those closed meetings are somehow weird, especially when they talk about things we, as registrars' customers, should be concerned about. A short example here that popped up on the SSAC ist earlier today: http://www.dotweekly.com/2009/09/05/expired-domain-name-process-needs-fixing... <http://www.dotweekly.com/2009/09/05/expired-domain-name-process-needs-fixing...> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Patrick Vande Walle Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
According to some tweets, you were not the only one excluded from this meeting. So was Richard Sexton. http://rs79.vrx.net/works/observations/dns/events/icann/meetings/toronto
Actually, reading Richard's blog makes the situation worse -- considerably worse, to me. This was not a matter of not telling me, or forgetting to post the meeting notes publicly. This was ICANN calling security on a member of the public who wanted to attend a meeting. Richard was the wrong person to deny entry to. He is knowledgeble on ICANN issues and quite smart enough to know the difference between a policy meeting and a contractual-issues meeting This goes far beyond the "we didn't think it was important to others" or "we're not there to discuss policy" explanations. This was an issue of members of the public -- who were not being abusive -- being forcably extracted from an ICANN-funded meeting. - Evan
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Vanda Scartezini