I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed. - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters). There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them. Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed. But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked. Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model. All I know right now is that: - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying. My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else. Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
+1 Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach. Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process. I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload. Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe. This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Hi. I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external people of high reputation, were established. For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 2. To get the world's attention. As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that lies within the community. My concern about the panels is this: 1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction). Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight. Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with. The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be warranted. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
+1
Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach.
Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process.
I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload.
Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe.
This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
It is not about the results, which I hope and am confident they may produce good work, it is about the process. What cost is it to run it through the community as a participant IN the community through the bottomup process to form the panels? Lets say that would add 3 months to the process, but that should be the approach from management I my mind. An authoritarian regime can produce good work with efficiency too. But is that what we want? I could be the minority here :-) but the question has not been asked. Edmon From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:12 AM To: Edmon Chung Cc: ALAC Working List; Evan Leibovitch; José Francisco Arce Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload Hi. I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external people of high reputation, were established. For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 2. To get the world's attention. As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that lies within the community. My concern about the panels is this: 1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction). Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight. Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with. The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be warranted. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: +1 Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach. Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process. I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload. Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe. This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13
Edmon, All views are appreciated, especially minority ones because they push boundaries of discussion. I think results are very important. Process is important, and particularly inclusive processes for the purpose of achieving better results. If we only care about processes, it means that we are oriented towards achieving nothing in the quest to improve the human condition via the areas of ICANN work. The key question for management is how to achieve the results while knowing that inclusive process is both important to the community and necessary for results of quality. If social experiments were really costless, we could run parallel tracks of bottom-up, top-down and combined approaches. We could then compare the results and see which ones work best (and I know that best here can vary depending on the individual). Unfortunately, processes are not costless. As I recall, ICANN did ask the community to nominate names. The problem was that ICANN didn't ask for feedback on the selection that it made to ascertain if there were gaps. It would have been great if the panels were formulated with half external and half internal "experts", but this is how Fadi chose to proceed. It would be worthwhile to ask him to have a dialogue with the community to explain the thought processes that underlie the decisions-made. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 12:49 PM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
It is not about the results, which I hope and am confident they may produce good work, it is about the process.
What “cost” is it to run it through the community as a participant IN the community through the bottomup process to form the panels?
Lets say that would add 3 months to the process, but that should be the approach from management I my mind. An authoritarian regime can produce good work with efficiency too. But is that what we want? I could be the minority here :-) but the question has not been asked.
Edmon
*From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:12 AM *To:* Edmon Chung *Cc:* ALAC Working List; Evan Leibovitch; José Francisco Arce *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
Hi.
I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external people of high reputation, were established.
For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 2. To get the world's attention.
As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that lies within the community.
My concern about the panels is this: 1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction).
Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight. Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with.
The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be warranted.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
+1
Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach.
Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process.
I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload.
Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe.
This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13
:-D Results are of course important. But in matters of governance, consented process is often more important than results, or else, why have governance, we only need management (where results are more important). In my mind, it is not how the panels are constituted, but how the panels were conceptualized. I do not mind board/ceo suggesting these panels, but they should first ask the community whether and how such panels should be formed before asking for volunteers to be part of the panel. That would be more consistent with the spirit of bottom up in my mind. Anyway, again, I am not against those panels. I think we need to, as a community, think about how the board/ceo should/should-not create these panels in the future though, regardless of whether the results of those panels were good/bad. Edmon From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:22 PM To: Edmon Chung Cc: ALAC Working List; José Francisco Arce; Evan Leibovitch Subject: RE: [ALAC] Panel overload Edmon, All views are appreciated, especially minority ones because they push boundaries of discussion. I think results are very important. Process is important, and particularly inclusive processes for the purpose of achieving better results. If we only care about processes, it means that we are oriented towards achieving nothing in the quest to improve the human condition via the areas of ICANN work. The key question for management is how to achieve the results while knowing that inclusive process is both important to the community and necessary for results of quality. If social experiments were really costless, we could run parallel tracks of bottom-up, top-down and combined approaches. We could then compare the results and see which ones work best (and I know that best here can vary depending on the individual). Unfortunately, processes are not costless. As I recall, ICANN did ask the community to nominate names. The problem was that ICANN didn't ask for feedback on the selection that it made to ascertain if there were gaps. It would have been great if the panels were formulated with half external and half internal "experts", but this is how Fadi chose to proceed. It would be worthwhile to ask him to have a dialogue with the community to explain the thought processes that underlie the decisions-made. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 12:49 PM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: It is not about the results, which I hope and am confident they may produce good work, it is about the process. What cost is it to run it through the community as a participant IN the community through the bottomup process to form the panels? Lets say that would add 3 months to the process, but that should be the approach from management I my mind. An authoritarian regime can produce good work with efficiency too. But is that what we want? I could be the minority here :-) but the question has not been asked. Edmon From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:12 AM To: Edmon Chung Cc: ALAC Working List; Evan Leibovitch; José Francisco Arce Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload Hi. I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external people of high reputation, were established. For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 2. To get the world's attention. As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that lies within the community. My concern about the panels is this: 1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction). Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight. Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with. The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be warranted. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote: +1 Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach. Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process. I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload. Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe. This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way. Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C) _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13
Edmon, I agree that consultation with the community on processes related to the panels should have been done. Board and management should be called out on the fact that the consultation did not happen. In ICANN, this should be filed under bad practise. I think what you are asking for is a review of the current process and identification of what factors would accord such processes legitimacy by way of community input and engagement. Expert panels are valuable mechanisms for achieving specific objectives. I don't think we want to stop the CEO/Board from utilizing these mechanisms, but rather to identify the requirements that would make them acceptable and worthy of support by the community. If this is what you mean, then we are in agreement. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 28, 2013 5:56 PM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
:-D
Results are of course important.
But in matters of governance, consented process is often more important than results, or else, why have “governance”, we only need “management” (where results are more important).
In my mind, it is not how the panels are constituted, but how the panels were conceptualized. I do not mind board/ceo suggesting these panels, but they should first ask the community whether and how such panels should be formed before asking for volunteers to be part of the panel. That would be more consistent with the spirit of bottom up in my mind.
Anyway, again, I am not against those panels.
I think we need to, as a community, think about how the board/ceo should/should-not create these panels in the future though, regardless of whether the results of those panels were good/bad.
Edmon
*From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:22 PM *To:* Edmon Chung *Cc:* ALAC Working List; José Francisco Arce; Evan Leibovitch *Subject:* RE: [ALAC] Panel overload
Edmon,
All views are appreciated, especially minority ones because they push boundaries of discussion.
I think results are very important. Process is important, and particularly inclusive processes for the purpose of achieving better results. If we only care about processes, it means that we are oriented towards achieving nothing in the quest to improve the human condition via the areas of ICANN work.
The key question for management is how to achieve the results while knowing that inclusive process is both important to the community and necessary for results of quality.
If social experiments were really costless, we could run parallel tracks of bottom-up, top-down and combined approaches. We could then compare the results and see which ones work best (and I know that best here can vary depending on the individual). Unfortunately, processes are not costless.
As I recall, ICANN did ask the community to nominate names. The problem was that ICANN didn't ask for feedback on the selection that it made to ascertain if there were gaps. It would have been great if the panels were formulated with half external and half internal "experts", but this is how Fadi chose to proceed. It would be worthwhile to ask him to have a dialogue with the community to explain the thought processes that underlie the decisions-made.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Nov 28, 2013 12:49 PM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
It is not about the results, which I hope and am confident they may produce good work, it is about the process.
What “cost” is it to run it through the community as a participant IN the community through the bottomup process to form the panels?
Lets say that would add 3 months to the process, but that should be the approach from management I my mind. An authoritarian regime can produce good work with efficiency too. But is that what we want? I could be the minority here :-) but the question has not been asked.
Edmon
*From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 28, 2013 11:12 AM *To:* Edmon Chung *Cc:* ALAC Working List; Evan Leibovitch; José Francisco Arce *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
Hi.
I wonder if people remember Fadi's speech during the LACRALO showcase in Buenos Aires. He explained why the panels, which comprised mostly external people of high reputation, were established.
For him, the panels essentially had a two-fold purpose: 1. To help frame strategy development in the areas of concern; and 2. To get the world's attention.
As a publicity tool, it certainly was not a bad idea. And Fadi also understood and explained that filling in the strategy itself would not come from the panels, but rather the community because the expertise for that lies within the community.
My concern about the panels is this: 1. There are many panels and they are all drawing from the same community for ideas and resources, creating fatigue at a time when people are worried about what will happen in Brazil and the ITU events; 2. There is a relationship among the panels that haven't been worked out yet (eg, I believe that the public responsibility panel should be the aggregate or stand above the rest as the highest level strategic direction).
Strategy development is a CEO's responsibility with Board oversight. Rather than start another initiative now, let us see what the panels come up with.
The panels have a very short frame-development timeline (ie, January). If the community does not believe that the panels are adding any value after seeing the output, then a different strategy development initiative would be warranted.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Nov 28, 2013 10:07 AM, "Edmon" <edmon@isoc.hk> wrote:
+1
Those are slaps in the face of both bottom-up and multistakeholder approach.
Rather than supporting strategy development from the bottom, the approach is top-down board/ceo initiated "panels". I can only believe that the same funds, if directed to the "bottom", can achieve much better "input" to the process.
I am not against having outside "panelists" but I can only agree that there is significant overload.
Perhaps we need ONE MORE multistakeholder panel that is bottom-up... I wonder how the bottom-up process can put a stop or at least develop some sensible framework and oversight to it. Perhaps the GNSO/ccNSO/ASO jointly should work to put better parameters around such board/ceo initiated panels?... ALAC can be the facilitator I believe.
This allows the community to produce a consensus policy for ICANN itself in a bottom up, multistakeholder way.
Edmon
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of José Francisco Arce Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:30 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Panel overload
+1 I have the same feeling. It seems that everything needs to be more organize. What realy ICANN (Fady) wants to reach with all this? It's about multistekeholderism or anything else.
Jose.- El nov 27, 2013 4:18 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> escribió:
I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed.
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort)
That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters).
There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them.
Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed.
But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked.
Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model.
All I know right now is that:
- It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying.
My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13 ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6873 - Release Date: 11/27/13
Hello all, just a note quick note: On 27/11/2013 20:17, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged)
These are all well on their way - and as has been explained later in this thread, serve a specific purpose.
- The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration These are the various organisations that signed it. I believe that our SO/AC work will feed into this eventually through ICANN's channel into the process. ICANN's input will therefore be multi-stakeholder.
- A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia This has indeed been formed and is a separate process that's not looking for more people, as far as I know (see Sally Costerton note I forwarded to the ALAC Internal list). But I'll ask to make sure.
- An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) Yes -- and I need to thank many of you for setting the record straight whilst I was travelling so as for this group to go from a joint NCSG/ALAC Action Item open to all, to a full Cross Community Working Group, which is, it appears, what is wanted by other participants in ICANN.
I am well aware of the red tape that an official designation as a "Cross Community Working Group" entices and will push for the group's work to start ASAP based on the discussions the NCSG and the ALAC had together, with a charter being worked out by the side. Kind regards, Olivier
Hi Olivier My question: At the joint meeting of the ALAC and NCUC, a joint group was formed to assist us both to respond - from our perspectives - to the challenges of Brazil. From memory, a wiki would be created that the 6 of us (3 from both groups) so we could work on a joint position - backing up the two (you and Avri??) Should we be reminding staff - and starting work on it? Thanks Holly On 29/11/2013, at 5:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
just a note quick note:
On 27/11/2013 20:17, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged)
These are all well on their way - and as has been explained later in this thread, serve a specific purpose.
- The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration These are the various organisations that signed it. I believe that our SO/AC work will feed into this eventually through ICANN's channel into the process. ICANN's input will therefore be multi-stakeholder.
- A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia This has indeed been formed and is a separate process that's not looking for more people, as far as I know (see Sally Costerton note I forwarded to the ALAC Internal list). But I'll ask to make sure.
- An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) Yes -- and I need to thank many of you for setting the record straight whilst I was travelling so as for this group to go from a joint NCSG/ALAC Action Item open to all, to a full Cross Community Working Group, which is, it appears, what is wanted by other participants in ICANN.
I am well aware of the red tape that an official designation as a "Cross Community Working Group" entices and will push for the group's work to start ASAP based on the discussions the NCSG and the ALAC had together, with a charter being worked out by the side.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Dear Holly, staff was on holiday last week. The effort's already reached a proportion that's larger than ALAC/NCSG. I've been told by David Olive that the effort will be supported by GSE staff & that they'll all come into action this week. AIs were listed on: https://community.icann.org/x/vVl-Ag , are clear and just need to be effected by staff. Kind regards, Olivier On 01/12/2013 21:23, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Olivier
My question: At the joint meeting of the ALAC and NCUC, a joint group was formed to assist us both to respond - from our perspectives - to the challenges of Brazil. From memory, a wiki would be created that the 6 of us (3 from both groups) so we could work on a joint position - backing up the two (you and Avri??) Should we be reminding staff - and starting work on it?
Thanks
Holly On 29/11/2013, at 5:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
just a note quick note:
On 27/11/2013 20:17, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
- Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) These are all well on their way - and as has been explained later in this thread, serve a specific purpose. - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration These are the various organisations that signed it. I believe that our SO/AC work will feed into this eventually through ICANN's channel into the process. ICANN's input will therefore be multi-stakeholder.
- A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia This has indeed been formed and is a separate process that's not looking for more people, as far as I know (see Sally Costerton note I forwarded to the ALAC Internal list). But I'll ask to make sure.
- An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) Yes -- and I need to thank many of you for setting the record straight whilst I was travelling so as for this group to go from a joint NCSG/ALAC Action Item open to all, to a full Cross Community Working Group, which is, it appears, what is wanted by other participants in ICANN.
I am well aware of the red tape that an official designation as a "Cross Community Working Group" entices and will push for the group's work to start ASAP based on the discussions the NCSG and the ALAC had together, with a charter being worked out by the side.
Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (6)
-
Edmon -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
José Francisco Arce -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim