Evan, If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on 3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further refinement. However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or reconsider the statement. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting Hi Wendy,
While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling
explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN.
This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. It was noted that -- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. -- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has special significance (and publicity potential) -- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of this.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed
on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC"
review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two. Can you clairify what they meant? - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org