Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hello Evan The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate - Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.
Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics.
The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as well.
There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet. --Wendy
Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..
Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available in every city in the world...
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control"
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: -
at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...
Hello Jaqueline,
What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) );
The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend.
Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place.
The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves.
If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy.
- Evan
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I am seriously puzzled by this. I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with ICANN about a meeting. If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process (which is proceeding in all other regions). Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" campaign.... Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: 11 April 2007 09:04 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hello Evan The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate - Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore.
Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics.
The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as well.
There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet.
--Wendy
Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, it can be anywhere..
Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available in every city in the world...
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control"
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: -
at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a different understanding...
Hello Jaqueline,
What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native either ;-) );
The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not attend.
Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason (that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and location was that someone was making meeting space available at that tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to have a meeting at a particular time or place.
The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which is preferred by the participants themselves.
If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy.
- Evan
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_at large-list s.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I am seriously puzzled by this. I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with ICANN about a meeting.
Perhaps, if that had been the process from the start. In this case, however, that procedure was chosen only after the previous one, in which regional reps were looked to for advice about regional activites, failed to produce the results ICANN wanted. It smacks of post-hoc routing around critics.
If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process (which is proceeding in all other regions). Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" campaign....
I did not unilaterally decide a face-to-face meeting wasn't warranted, but listened to discussion among the region's accredited ALSs. Many of them expressed the view that since the RALO would have to do its work online, it should conduct its formation activities online as a test of their workability. I have heard nothing in subsequent discussions to convince me that the consensus has shifted. Squatting or astroturf (fake grassroots, engineered by ICANN itself) seems to be the choice of the moment. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I can check to see if this approval process was available in February. I'm not sure. It may have changed, or it may have been there but not used? With regard to a f2f, more than half of the 12 currently approved ALSes have indicated that they want a f2f meeting before San Juan. 2 have said no and the rep has indicated that the online work preference is the reason. One has expressed concern about the funding availability, but has not said no to the concept of a f2f meeting. But I do wonder - if the preference is for online work, then why come to San Juan? Why not participate in all the meetings online and remotely? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:41 AM To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I am seriously puzzled by this. I thought that the Chair of ALAC would have the authority to agree with ICANN about a meeting.
Perhaps, if that had been the process from the start. In this case, however, that procedure was chosen only after the previous one, in which regional reps were looked to for advice about regional activites, failed to produce the results ICANN wanted. It smacks of post-hoc routing around critics.
If something is flawed, it is not necessarily the RALO formation process (which is proceeding in all other regions). Incidentally, am I the only one who considers inappropriate the veto by the only remaining initial interim ALAC member (who should step down when the NARALO will become operational)? I still remember the "Boardsquatter" campaign....
I did not unilaterally decide a face-to-face meeting wasn't warranted, but listened to discussion among the region's accredited ALSs. Many of them expressed the view that since the RALO would have to do its work online, it should conduct its formation activities online as a test of their workability. I have heard nothing in subsequent discussions to convince me that the consensus has shifted. Squatting or astroturf (fake grassroots, engineered by ICANN itself) seems to be the choice of the moment. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM
Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
I can check to see if this approval process was available in February. I'm not sure. It may have changed, or it may have been there but not used?
With regard to a f2f, more than half of the 12 currently approved ALSes have indicated that they want a f2f meeting before San Juan.
That does not match my count. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I agree with Evan. We should meet if we need to meet and save ourselves and ICANN the time and money if we don't need to meet. By a separate message, I'll tick through the issues we need to resolve. Whether we meet in person in May or not, why don't we schedule some teleconference time next week to run through the issues? -- Bret On 4/10/07 7:47 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I'm all for a meeting and agree that something co-ordinated ought to be held before San Juan. What I'm unsure about is whether this is best done by conference call or in-person meeting. To me it depends on how much needs to be done, and how much prep is required. If doing the May meeting by phone makes it more likely that we can be subsidized to the annual meeting, that works best.
But I do wonder - if the preference is for online work, then why come to San Juan? Why not participate in all the meetings online and remotely?
Hi. It's the same reason we said when we turned down the Vancouver meeting -- at a full ICANN meeting, there's a lot more people than just the other ALS to meet and get to know. R's, John
I am travelling and have little connectivity or time to read and reply to the firestorm of messages over the last few days. But as a NA ALAC rep, I need to get my views out. 1. I did not support the Vancouver meeting because it had become clear that there would be virtually no US ALSs present, and I felt that this would be a bad start to a NARALO. 2. Unlike some others, I value a face-to-face meeting. I appreciate the belief that people "should" be able to function fully via e-mail without in-person contact, but in reality many people function better electronically after a face-to-face meeting. I am one of them. That does not mean I cannot work "blind", I have plenty of times, but it is just less effective. (Perhaps it is an age thing - although I have been an e-mail user for 30 years, and a heavy user for most of that time, I did start a bit late in life.) 3. If a well-represented NARALO can be organized in time for San Juan, fine. If not, the world will not end if it takes another month or two. 4. I support a face-to-face meeting (in Yonkers or Montreal or wherever) assuming it is announced in sufficient time for people to make arrangement to attend, it does not conflict with other major events, and that there we can get a significant number of both US and Canadian ALSs (or likely candidate ALSs) to attend (I will not get into playing the 50% game though). 5. I would not be able to attend the tentative meeting in Yonkers due to schedule conflict. It strike me that a date in early June might be more suitable, but I have not passed this by anyone. Alan
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
bfausett＠internet.law.pro -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John R Levine -
Roberto Gaetano -
Wendy Seltzer