Can I ask a rather annoying question...has Danny distributed the document from the GNSO-liaison mailing list? I haven't seen it. I would guess there would be a lot in there that not all the ALAC will agree with, but I think we have addressed that possible scenario by saying it's OK for the ALAC to say to the board (and/or to the public) that we don't have a consensus on a particular issue, but here are the key concerns. ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Izumi AIZU Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 8:12 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: At-Large Global List Subject: Re: [At-Large] <IMPORTANT> Draft Plan for Tuesday's AtLargecommunitymeeting with ICANN Board One background information, which I think may be usefule is, that there was a suggestion yesterday for the meeting with the Borad members to try to provide "advice" on policy issues since ALAC is essentialy an "advisory" role to the Board so the sentiment there was, in my interpretation, let us do the job - which does not mean that we don't have any in-depth dialogue, but rather, that could be a part of the dialogue. The difficulty we faced this morning was, it is not easy to come to a consensus within a short morning meeting on which policy items are more important than the others - so we kind of agreed to throw all items seemingly important that time to the list and listen to the members opinion, in the afternoon online, as well as in the evening if time allows. SO this is not by any means imposing the agenda or even ignoring the previous agenda suggestions, but a a work in progress. If my initial message to the list gave a wrong impression, sorry, but that was not the intention at all. AND, as I see it now, I think we are doing exactly the kind of thing we anticipated earlier in the morning. The only objective is to have a prodcutive meeting with the board. We can think and discuss how best to achieve that with all members ALAC with ALS and RALO. thanks, izumi 2007/10/30, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Mohammed
I got an email this morning that sent a proposed agenda, and asked for comments and edits, so obviously I didn't think that this was an agenda fixed in stone. I previously had sent a detailed draft agenda (last week) and some items were included and some left out. Some of what I sent last week I have not suggested be re-integrated.
I am not the only one who thinks that a more in-depth discussion with fewer topics is more useful. There is obviously a difference in what the meeting is seen as.
Generally, the meetings with Board members are there for an in-depth 2 way dialog on issues that are 1) before the Board and we want to make our point before they meet, or 2) that are issues important to at large that have been ignored by the ICANN processes and we want to raise them with the Board as at a higher level, 3) strategic issues relating to the At Large and its position within ICANN. 4) to gauge the Board's reaction to certain issues.
The forum for updating the Board on what we're up to has traditionally been the Public Forum statement.
If we want to change the format, that's fine, but it isn't currently unanimous, as you can see from the discussions.
Also, some of the issues that were proposed by the sub-committee have been dealt with, as 1) ALAC review - ICANN put out a statement recently on this, stating where we are in the process, what the Board has decided etc. 2) Domain tasting - is in a process that we asked for, and we have had recent updates on this. Those for sure would be a waste of time (IMO) to have Board members repeat the material that was recently published.
3) gTLD and GNSO - we have been asked for and have been developing written responses, so why discuss BEFORE we have sent those? We can say - yes, we are nearly ready to send the statement, and look out for it... but that's what we should raise in the forum and workshop...
Jacqueline
From: Mohamed EL Bashir [mailto:admin@isoc.sd] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 18:03 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'Bret Fausett'; 'At-Large Global List'
Subject: Re: [At-Large] <IMPORTANT> Draft Plan for Tuesday's AtLarge communitymeeting with ICANN Board
Hi Jaq.
a group which is delegated by ALAC yesterday meeting which it had a meeting today to prepare for ALAC & ICANN Board meeting tomorrow, and they presented us with a proposal today "an early meeting".
i see some major changes on the proposal "speakers" and items, for me i guess the earlier proposal is OK, regarding the time issue we can reduce the time to 5 mins for issues and proprietaries the issues .
am sure at 7pm meeting we can agree on the issues and our prioritize our issues .
Regards, Mohamed
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: OK Here's my take on the agenda now: Introductions - Jacqueline 5 mins - Acknowledgement and introduction for outgoing and incoming ALAC members - New members introduction ALAC in Transition- Veronica - Report on - One day Workshop - 5 mins Discussion with Board on the future of ALAC and At Large - 30 mins Policy issues - - gNSO improvement and gTLDs - Alan (5 min + discussion 5 min - total 10 min) - IDNs - Hong, Bilal - 10 min (include IGF, work with GAC and ccNSO) - IPV4 and IPV6 - Izumi, Didier - 10 min - Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs), Registry Escrow -Beau, danny - 10 min - Bylaws change (brief mention and any questions from Board before they get to it in their meeting) - Jacqueline ; Cheryl - 5 mins max - Budget- Cheryl and Annette - 15 mins total
This takes us to about 100 min, leaving 20 min for flexibility - e.g. late arrival of Board members(happens a lot as they have to do many meetings) as well as some flexibility to increase discussion time on issues that may turn out to need more time.
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 14:19 To: At-Large Global List Subject: Re: [At-Large] <IMPORTANT> Draft Plan for Tuesday's AtLarge communitymeeting with ICANN Board
I agree with this as well. A significant portion of the meeting should be open for a more flexible discussion of the status and future of the ALAC.
Bret
agree with Siavash that we should include a visioning issue as well.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
--
Best Regards,
Mohamed El Bashir
President, Sudan Internet Society
.SD Domain Name Registry
Vice President, Communications & Out-Reach "African Top Level Domains Organization-AfTLD"
ICANN ccNSO Council Member
ICANN ALAC Committee Member
Personal Web : www.mbash.net
""Life lies not in never falling, but in rising when you fall." Nelson Mandela 1995, Easten Cape.
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02
_______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org *** Scanned