I also very much agree and echo the opinion expressed about the very little time and attention and weight given to the public forum. Many have spent their money/time to come to Cairo, or, like me, ICANN has spent some money for that, and limiting that into just on hour does not make much sense at all. It is also inappropriate to mix the dignity speeches with the very serious business of dialogue. The lack of consultation for the preparation process of the meeting is, also, source of problem, too. Agenda is decided almost one-sided, the participants have no clue untli coming there, then found surprises, no time to react, make statement of protest later - that is not a well strucuture - after 10 years and 33 times of the meetings. izumi 2008/11/8 Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu>:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
I am of the view that the ALAC needs to write a very strong letter to the Board expressing their disgust with (1) the manner in which the ICANN Public Forum session was conducted that allowed for a very limited amount of time within which to interact with the Board and (2) the almost total lack of remote participation opportunities that were available to at-large members.
As someone that attempted to participate remotely, I can't point to a single ALAC session that allowed for meaningful remote participation, nor were audio feeds available for many workshops.
He can speak for himself (not sure whether he is subscribed to this list) but Karl Auerbach, who could not make it to Cairo, tried to participate remotely both in the sessions of the WG he is part of and in other sessions, and was utterly frustrated as well.
Also, I found it entirely unacceptable how the gentleman who was introduced by Beau in the gTLD workshop, and that started to expose ICANN's lack of compliance activities and its consequences on favouring phishing and spamming, was first somewhat harassed by the moderator of the session, who all of a sudden realized that he was running short of time and so asked the speaker to be brief, and then by one of the speakers on the podium. I am really astonished that there was no reaction by the ALAC to that.
I already made my comments to the Board, as you saw, and several Board members told me that they share my views on the Public Forum. Unfortunately, not everyone does so; public comment is perceived by some as dangerous, as it may expose ICANN's shortcomings and put it under a bad light. There is a clear push "not to derail the train" coming from some of the people and parties who enjoy better treatment by ICANN, and it is hard to imagine that the bad scheduling and management of the Public Forum in Cairo were completely unintentional. This is why I agree with Danny that the ALAC needs to be very vocal.
Actually, if I may, I suggest that, in case this kind of problem happens again, either the ALAC Chair from the floor or the ALAC Board Liaison from the podium should promptly make a statement, even if personal, to complain.
But, at least, please write a kind but firm letter to the Board.
Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org