What happened at the Board meeting?
Hi all. As the folks who attended Sydney know, I had to leave early, midday Thursday. But while in transit to my next destination the Skype chatter that I read sounded disturbing. I got the impression that the Board discussed the ALAC Review and supported everything except the two Board seats. Or maybe it was one Board member in opposition. Or maybe it was that the Board itself is going through a change in numbers and adding ALAC seats in the middle of this wouldn't work. Or maybe it's none of the above. I couldn't tell by reading the email and IM so far. Can some who was there please offer some comment on what happened? I'd seriously like to know more than rumour, meeting minutes won't capture the spirit of the discussion, and it'd be nice to know the POV of others in At-Large. Oh, and an idea of what they did with the IRT report would be nice to know too. It would be disappointing to hear that all that anti-IRT work through the week was for naught. Thanks! - Evan
The ALAC review was received by the Board and to quote the motion "Board directs ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats, which will be discussed by the Board at its next meeting). These plans and timeline should be submitted to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval." There had been a third section on the Board seats. Just as with the GNSO Board seats which have also not been approved due to ongoing discussions regarding the size of the Board, this motion had some curious wording in it. One Board member, Steve Goldstein objected to the specific wording and the ultimate decision was to table that part of the motion until the next Board meeting. Based on private conversations, I would NOT presume that this was an anti-ALAC move (akin to his objection regarding the Summit). I do not believe that there was na agenda item on the IRT. The only action was to thank the group for their hard work. Alan At 30/06/2009 01:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi all.
As the folks who attended Sydney know, I had to leave early, midday Thursday. But while in transit to my next destination the Skype chatter that I read sounded disturbing. I got the impression that the Board discussed the ALAC Review and supported everything except the two Board seats.
Or maybe it was one Board member in opposition.
Or maybe it was that the Board itself is going through a change in numbers and adding ALAC seats in the middle of this wouldn't work.
Or maybe it's none of the above. I couldn't tell by reading the email and IM so far.
Can some who was there please offer some comment on what happened? I'd seriously like to know more than rumour, meeting minutes won't capture the spirit of the discussion, and it'd be nice to know the POV of others in At-Large. Oh, and an idea of what they did with the IRT report would be nice to know too. It would be disappointing to hear that all that anti-IRT work through the week was for naught.
Thanks!
- Evan
Hello Alan Thanks for the clear summary and your insight into the developments. Unlike Evan, I was present but have still been wondering what it really implied. Shiva. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
The ALAC review was received by the Board and to quote the motion "Board directs ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats, which will be discussed by the Board at its next meeting). These plans and timeline should be submitted to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval."
There had been a third section on the Board seats. Just as with the GNSO Board seats which have also not been approved due to ongoing discussions regarding the size of the Board, this motion had some curious wording in it. One Board member, Steve Goldstein objected to the specific wording and the ultimate decision was to table that part of the motion until the next Board meeting.
Based on private conversations, I would NOT presume that this was an anti-ALAC move (akin to his objection regarding the Summit).
I do not believe that there was na agenda item on the IRT. The only action was to thank the group for their hard work.
Alan
At 30/06/2009 01:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi all.
As the folks who attended Sydney know, I had to leave early, midday Thursday. But while in transit to my next destination the Skype chatter that I read sounded disturbing. I got the impression that the Board discussed the ALAC Review and supported everything except the two Board seats.
Or maybe it was one Board member in opposition.
Or maybe it was that the Board itself is going through a change in numbers and adding ALAC seats in the middle of this wouldn't work.
Or maybe it's none of the above. I couldn't tell by reading the email and IM so far.
Can some who was there please offer some comment on what happened? I'd seriously like to know more than rumour, meeting minutes won't capture the spirit of the discussion, and it'd be nice to know the POV of others in At-Large. Oh, and an idea of what they did with the IRT report would be nice to know too. It would be disappointing to hear that all that anti-IRT work through the week was for naught.
Thanks!
- 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
I agree with Alan. I haven't see any movement against ALAC. I am not an English expert but the words used in the board decisions, from my view, allowed more than one interpretation. For me, the decision was fair. We need now to define how we will implement ALAC review. During the meetings I have suggested an internal working group to start the implementation. Hope everybody arrived safe at home, had rest and are now ready for continuation of our work! I would like to reaffirm my congratulations to LACRALO members for the huge participation into several meetings! First time I see such important number of members as web participants. Best to all 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 Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:45 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] What happened at the Board meeting? The ALAC review was received by the Board and to quote the motion "Board directs ICANN Staff to assist the At-Large community in developing a proposed implementation plan and timeline for the recommendations in the report (except for the recommendation to provide At-Large with voting seats, which will be discussed by the Board at its next meeting). These plans and timeline should be submitted to the Structural Improvements Committee for review and Board approval." There had been a third section on the Board seats. Just as with the GNSO Board seats which have also not been approved due to ongoing discussions regarding the size of the Board, this motion had some curious wording in it. One Board member, Steve Goldstein objected to the specific wording and the ultimate decision was to table that part of the motion until the next Board meeting. Based on private conversations, I would NOT presume that this was an anti-ALAC move (akin to his objection regarding the Summit). I do not believe that there was na agenda item on the IRT. The only action was to thank the group for their hard work. Alan At 30/06/2009 01:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi all.
As the folks who attended Sydney know, I had to leave early, midday Thursday. But while in transit to my next destination the Skype chatter that I read sounded disturbing. I got the impression that the Board discussed the ALAC Review and supported everything except the two Board seats.
Or maybe it was one Board member in opposition.
Or maybe it was that the Board itself is going through a change in numbers and adding ALAC seats in the middle of this wouldn't work.
Or maybe it's none of the above. I couldn't tell by reading the email and IM so far.
Can some who was there please offer some comment on what happened? I'd seriously like to know more than rumour, meeting minutes won't capture the spirit of the discussion, and it'd be nice to know the POV of others in At-Large. Oh, and an idea of what they did with the IRT report would be nice to know too. It would be disappointing to hear that all that anti-IRT work through the week was for naught.
Thanks!
- 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
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Vanda Scartezini