Evan and all my friends, I didn't get the impression that Vittorio was "confused" in his earlier remarks and/or observations. I also did get the impression in Wendy's remarks regarding the ALAC's and summits funding were spot on. ICANN should not fund such as the ALAC members should be able to "pass the hat" as it were to fund any and all Summit participants whom wish to attend, to do so. If done, such would show in and of itself, the viability of the ALAC accordingly. I am sure that a few registrars or registries, such as NSOL would be willing to "Donate" some funds [ no strings attached ] for the ALAC as doing so would be in their best interest. >:) And Google certainly should be willing to "Donate" a significant amount of funds for the ALAC and the summit event as well. >:) How about it Vint, Chuck? So anyway, get those hush puppies on and pound the pavement, and burn some of those cell phone min.'s and let your fingers do the walking and you mouth do the talking! But don't let rejection deter your efforts and success will be your reward! >:) Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Please excuse my lateness in joining this thread, I have had zero connectivity since the Board resolution.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

...

Kleinwächter ha scritto:

...

To make the development sustainable one could already now start with the development of a five year project for At Large with an annual "October Summit" (linked to the regular ICANN meetings) rotating to the five continents (ATLAS I, November 2008 Africa, ATLAS II, October 2009 Europe, ATLAS III, October 2010 North America, ATLAS IV, October 2011 Latin America, ATLAS V, October 2012 Asia-Pacific). During the other two ICANN annual regular meetings we could have smaller PrepComs.

Ok, so now I am seriously confused again. It seems to me that there are two very different concepts of this At Large Summit on the table. The first is the one you are exposing, with a long term process and objectives, yearly meetings, PrepComs, all ALSes attending because they have a right to do so, high-level political discussions on the future role of the US Government etc. The other is the one Darlene is talking about, a one-time event focused on immediate policy objectives and deliverables, with pre-requisites on previous contributions before attendance is granted, and a very low profile outside of ICANN. The two approaches are not impossible to reconcile, but they are definitely different in spirit.

Hello Vittorio,

[ Note: What follows is my sole opinion and does not represent the endorsed view of anyone else; however I do believe that it reflects my perception of the character of the Summit working group ]

The current vision of the Summit by the WG is the way Darlene has described it -- as a one-time event. Certainly the Board resolution on the Summit does not see beyond the one specific event, and that is OK with us.

There is an issue of maturity and credibility. As has been mentioned, the endorsement of the Summit is the first endorsement by the Board of a major project that is not only designed exclusively _for_ the At-Large community, but also one that was initiated by ALAC's grassroots. As such, this move involves risk, as ALAC has not yet demonstrated the capability or the capacity to execute such a proposal.

ICANN's Board and constituencies have a legitimate interest in seeing that the At-Large Summits are not a waste of money, that they will deliver on their promise at least to a reasonable level. ICANN legitimately does not want to see this as either a one-week vacation for ALS reps nor simply a social/networking event.

Within the Summit WG certainly exist some ideas of what an ongoing-regular series of Summits would look like. One vision is as a biennial event, working closely with the local-RALO "mini-summits" that are already a permanent part of every ICANN meeting. Other ideas have suggested better synchronization with IGF (and other) activities on policy issues of common interest such as a registrant's charter of rights.

All of this is good to consider at a visionary level; however, it is _critical_ to understand that functionally, the WG is absolutely focused on making the first -- solitary -- Summit the best possible. There is no current plan to deliberately architect this Summit as the first of a series; its objectives will not be dependent on the ability to have future Summits. Having said this, if the Summit is executed well and meets the expectations of both At-Large and ICANN leadership, it is natural that followup events will be considered and probably supported.

For now, we must demonstrate that we are able to walk before asking for track shoes. I -- and I suspect the board shares this view -- have no interest in talking about anything beyond the first Summit, until the community has demonstrated that it can actually *do* a first Summit.

I hope this helps with your confusion, Vittorio.

- 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

Evan and all my friends, Somehow I knew you would say pretty close to what you did say in reaponse. If what your asserting than is so why is the ALAC Summit seeking ICANN funding? Hogwash indeed? Humm? Ergo Evan, me thinks you protest too much... This is not to say that trying to seek such wasn't worth a try! >:) BTW, hogs don't wash, the wallow! >:) All this exchange reminds me of another time in my past life, when once in Paris, I was out walking and found myself in a rather ceedy area of the city, and a young very attractive and provocatively dressed young woman approache me and ask me in good but heavely accented french if I was interested in some company. I relpied in my best french, "certainly, I am looking for a good resturante for dinner and she was welcome to join me and I would buy her dinner". She replied, "but sir, my price is 100 franks". So I immediately knew my dashing good looks and kind offer of a free dinner were not enough of an incentive for her company. A well, se la vi! So I tossed her a 5 frank piece and wet on my way... >:) Regards or should I say, bona patite, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:

...

ICANN should not fund such as the ALAC members should be able to "pass the hat" as it were to fund any and all Summit participants whom wish to attend, to do so. If done, such would show in and of itself, the viability of the ALAC accordingly.

This is absolute hogwash.

The members of ALSs were not brought here, in many cases actively solicited, because of their fundraising skills. To suggest that the viability (let alone success) of ALAC is to be judged on its ability to self-finance is to grotesquely miss the point of why it exists in the first place. But you certainly wouldn't be the first person to do that...

- Evan

Hi, Being in Kathmandu, I do not have sufficent connectivity. With my brief scan, I tend to agree with Darleen and Evan as well as Wendy. The Board resolution is, of course, not the ideal. It would be best to make the summit to happen in Paris. But there was a riks associated. In cotrast, making a prep meeting in Paris, as Wolfgang suggested, for the next oen in Africa, mekae mch more. Though, often a lot of iportant meetings are taken place in August - October, we can still try to make it happen. I agree with Wolfgang - let ALS/RALO/ALAC concentrate on the "quailty" or substance of the work to be organized ah the sorking summit. izumi